Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Amsterdam Treaty

Mr. Hammond: If he will make a statement on those provisions of the Amsterdam treaty title on immigration, asylum and visas that allow the United Kingdom to opt in subject to national veto. [15988]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The United Kingdom will have the right, under the Amsterdam treaty, to take part in the adoption and application of measures proposed under new title IIIa to be inserted into the European Community treaty. UK participation in measures on immigration, asylum and visas which form part of the existing third pillar acquis is an absolute right and not subject to challenge. In the case of the present Schengen acquis, to none of which the UK is a party, the unanimous agreement of the other states is required, but that is qualified by the Council declaration that the decision shall be taken on the basis of an opinion by the European Commission, and that every country shall use its "best efforts" to enable the UK to participate.

Mr. Hammond: Does the Foreign Secretary accept responsibility for the late-night blunder during the negotiation of this title of the treaty, which led the Prime Minister inadvertently to mislead the House on 18 June this year, when he said that, if Britain decided to enter into those parts of the treaty, no other country could block us?

Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely correct in what he said to the House. Article 3 of the UK-Irish protocol says:
The United Kingdom or Ireland may notify the President of the Council in writing… that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of any such proposed measure, whereupon that State shall be entitled to do so.
What the Prime Minister said to the House is accurately reflected in that protocol.

Dr. Marek: Why did Her Majesty's Government allow this part of the Amsterdam treaty to be framed in such a way that Gibraltar will never be allowed to opt in, because, as the Foreign Secretary must know, Spain will

use and insist on its veto should Gibraltar ever want to join and opt into the arrangements? Is it simply that Her Majesty's Government do not care about Gibraltar and give it a low priority, or was it just a Government cock-up?

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his friendly intervention!
First, I strongly resent the suggestion that Her Majesty's Government are not committed to the sovereignty or protection of Gibraltar. No part of Europe has more occupied my thoughts in the past two months than Gibraltar. Secondly, there was no cock-up during the Amsterdam treaty negotiations. Spain did propose an amendment to have the effect of bringing in unanimity for UK participation in the Schengen acquis. I did challenge it and Spain withdrew that amendment. There was an agreement that there should be an amendment only if it was submitted in writing by Spain. No such amendment was submitted during the hearings of the Amsterdam negotiations.
The subsequent change to the treaty was a bilateral agreement between Spain and the Dutch presidency. When, a week later, we received the text that contained that change, we obtained the declaration to which I have referred, but I repeat: there is no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to enter the Schengen acquis. On the contrary, the main gain from the Amsterdam treaty for Britain is that it has achieved a clear legal foundation for our border controls, which was never obtained by the Conservative party in 18 years.

Mr. Faber: The right hon. Gentleman's first and second replies clearly contradicted each other. Did not the Prime Minister boast to the House on 18 June that no other country could block our opt-in? The Foreign Secretary has now admitted that Spain can block that opt-in and he has claimed that Spain and Holland undertook some form of bilateral agreement after the summit. Was not the Prime Minister inaccurate in what he told the House on 18 June?

Mr. Cook: The Prime Minister was entirely accurate in what he told the House and I have quoted from the UK-Irish protocol. I advise the hon. Gentleman to consult the original text, where he will find that there is a clear distinction between immigration, visa and asylum provisions under pillar 3, which are clearly provided for in the way in which the Prime Minister told the House, and the Schengen acquis, to which we are not and have no intention of being a party.

Kyoto Conference

Mr. Bayley: What communications he has had with the United States Secretary of State about the forthcoming Kyoto conference. [15989]

Mr. Robin Cook: I spoke to Mrs. Albright at the end of last week about climate change and the Kyoto negotiations. I also had an extensive bilateral on those topics with Mrs. Albright in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently visited Washington to


discuss the Kyoto conference. We shall continue to be in close contact with the United States Government in the run-up to Kyoto to help ensure a successful outcome.

Mr. Bayley: I am glad that the Government are in close touch with the United States Secretary of State. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is compelling scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming and that quality of life—and, for some people in future generations, life itself—will be threatened if we do not take action? Does he further agree that there is a special obligation on industrialised countries such as the United Kingdom—and especially the United States, as the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases—to enter into a binding agreement to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere?

Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the severity and gravity of the problem. If the present trend of global warming continues, the world will face extremely unpredictable weather changes and a reduction in food-producing areas. For those reasons, it is vital for everyone that, at Kyoto, we achieve legally binding targets for reductions in CO2 emissions. I am proud to say that the British Government are playing an important part in working for a successful outcome at Kyoto. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has completed a visit to India. He spent the weekend in New Zealand and is currently in Australia working with those countries and taking the lead to achieve the environmental agreement that we need.

Mr. Swayne: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the United Kingdom's exemplary record has afforded him a platform from which he can encourage other countries to meet their targets and that that record is largely a result of Conservative policy?

Mr. Cook: I am proud to say that one of the Government's first actions was to ditch the Conservative target of a 10 per cent. reduction and replace it with a target of a 20 per cent. reduction. That shows that our policies are twice as good as theirs.

Mr. McAllion: Does my right hon. Friend accept that decisions about whether to invest in energy systems that burn fossil fuels and pump CO2 into the atmosphere or systems that promote energy efficiency and reliance on renewable sources of energy are essentially matters for elected Governments? When he meets Mrs. Albright, will he stress the point that next April the Government will not sign up to any multilateral agreements on investment that would take decisions away from elected Governments and hand them to transnational corporations?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that subsidiarity will certainly apply to those matters. However, Kyoto will be different from Rio in that we will be agreeing to a mandatory target that will then be obligatory on all parties that sign up to it. Although there are different ways in which that can be realised, it is important that Britain and other industrialised countries match their commitment to achieve that mandatory target if we are to have any hope of persuading developing countries to do likewise.

Export Forum

Ms Drown: If he will make a statement on the impact on his Department of the recommendations of the export forum. [15991]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): The FCO and the DTI launched the export forum in June to examine the effectiveness of Government support for UK exporters. Their recommendations were published in October. The Government accept their broad thrust. They give a positive and challenging basis for making the Foreign Office's efforts more focused on the needs of our customers—adding maximum value to their efforts and so leading to more jobs and prosperity for Britain.

Ms Drown: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and the initiative taken by the Government in asking the private sector what was needed to increase exports. Will the implementation of the recommendations of the export forum help small and medium businesses in Swindon and elsewhere in the country to reach out to the markets on which they are missing out?

Mr. Fatchett: I recently had the opportunity of visiting my hon. Friend's constituency in Swindon and seeing the work of the local business link and the support that it was offering to small and medium businesses. We very much welcome that support. One of the export forum's key recommendations is to ensure that greater emphasis and focus are placed on the work of small and medium enterprises, particularly in assisting them to open up new export markets and activities.

Information Campaigns

Mr. Gibb: What European Commission finance is presently available in the United Kingdom to fund information campaigns. [15993]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): General information and communication work concerning the European Union, including the Commission's information activities in the United Kingdom, is funded under chapter B3–30 of the European Community budget. For 1997, 107 million ecu—which is about £72 million at current exchange rates—has been allocated.

Mr. Gibb: On 28 October 1997, the Foreign Secretary made it clear to the House that the Government would not apply for European Union funding to pay for a pro-single currency campaign. How is that statement consistent with the answer that the Minister has just given or with the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has made it clear elsewhere that the Government will be applying for European Union funds to pay for a euro campaign?

Mr. Henderson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has approached the European Commission on whether it would provide some funding for a general information campaign, so that British business and British citizens have access to information on very important matters which will be considered in the coming months and years. The difference between the previous Government and


this Government is that they thought that everything should be kept secret, whereas we think that information should be provided to inform people.

Mr. Cunliffe: Does the Minister agree that, for informed debate on Europe, it is imperative that essential information is provided? Is it not clear that the Tories want a debate informed by their own prejudice, and that they are not interested in the facts?

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Commission now knows where the Government stand on the issues. Before the general election, the Commission did not know whether it should speak to one end of the Government or the other, because each gave a different answer—making it impossible to provide information.

Mr. Streeter: Is not the point that, on 28 October, the Foreign Secretary told the House that there would be no EU funding to promote the euro? The Minister has now had to concede that there will be a general information campaign, funded by the EU, to inform people about the euro. What is the difference? Is it not merely a disingenuous play on words? Does it not come from the same stable as the Prime Minister's assurance last week that he had paid back the £1 million, only to concede five minutes later that it had not been paid back? Would it not be better if Labour Ministers adopted a new policy of telling Parliament the truth in the first place?

Mr. Henderson: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that he would realise that there is a huge difference between the propaganda against Europe that the previous Government frequently tried to perpetrate and giving information to people, so that they can make their own assessment of the issues involved and make their own preparations—so that, when and if a referendum is held on the matter, they can make a decision based on knowledge, not prejudice.

Japan

Mr. Charles Clarke: If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Japan. [15994]

Mr. Fatchett: The United Kingdom enjoys excellent relations with Japan, which we regard as a special partner. Japan is our largest export market in Asia and a major inward investor in the United Kingdom. We work closely with Japan on a wide range of subjects, including joint science and technology projects, international peacekeeping, commercial collaboration in third markets and joint aid projects. There are also growing ties between the British and the Japanese people. We want to build closer relations in the future. The visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Japan, in January, will be an important step towards that objective.

Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Will he confirm that future relations between the United Kingdom and Japan will be strengthened by an open acknowledgement by the Japanese Government of the crimes of the past? Will the Government and the Prime Minister, on his visit next year, continue to press for full appropriate compensation for Japanese labour camp

victims and civilian internees? Does he acknowledge that full compensation is the basis for a stronger, better and more fruitful relationship in the future?

Mr. Fatchett: Since the Labour party was elected in May, I have had several meetings with representatives of the former prisoners of war. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have also had a series of meetings with Japanese Ministers and officials and we have suggested possible ways in which the wartime sufferings of the former prisoners of war could be recognised and acted on. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members welcomed the gesture by the Japanese ambassador in attending the Remembrance day service at Coventry cathedral the other week. That was a warming gesture of reconciliation and I hope that we can build on it in the next few months.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Do not events earlier today in Japan raise some profound questions about the issue of security? Is it not the case that, for a country such as the United Kingdom, economic turbulence—of the kind seen in Japan—is likely to be as disadvantageous as military threats? In the light of those circumstances, what measures have the Government urged on the Japanese Government, as a fellow member of the Group of Eight, as a means of restoring economic confidence in the domestic Japanese economy?

Mr. Fatchett: We all recognise the global significance of the events in south-east Asia, and Japan and Korea. We know that the Governments in the region are working closely with the International Monetary Fund and others, which is the right approach to open up their trade, to liberalise their markets and to take some of the measures that are crucial for their long-term financial and economic security.
One lesson that we must learn from the Japanese experience—much reinforced to me last week when I spoke to inward investors from Japan—is that, if we follow the Conservative party's European policies, Japanese inward investors will cut their investment in the United Kingdom. Every Japanese company that I visited told me that Conservative policies would put tens of thousands of jobs at risk.

Ms Squire: I very much welcome what my hon. Friend has just told the House. Does he share the concern of my constituents in Dunfermline, and people elsewhere in the United Kingdom, who have benefited from inward investment from south-east Asia? What measures will the Foreign Office take to ensure that we remain an attractive destination for investment by Japan, South Korea and other south-east Asian countries?

Mr. Fatchett: There was no doubt, during my discussions with Japanese and Korean inward investors last week, that the United Kingdom remained an attractive location. We have become even more attractive since 1 May, because inward investors know that we have political stability, and that we are committed to Europe and intend to be a central part of it. The messages from the previous Government were a strong disincentive to inward investment.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am sure that the Minister is right that one of the reasons why Japanese companies


invest in Britain is our membership of the European Union. What steps will the Minister take to reassure inward investors that the very advantages that they see in investing in Britain—more flexible labour markets—will not be eroded by following the European social model?

Mr. Fatchett: Not one Japanese company mentioned that to me last week. They saw attractive propositions in the United Kingdom and they will continue to look to this country as a suitable location for inward investment. If the right hon. Lady had a strong message on Europe, it would be attractive to Japanese companies. My wish for her is that she could win more support in her party, but she is sadly isolated in her beliefs.

Israeli Prime Minister

Mr. Dismore: If he will make a statement about his recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel. [15995]

Mr. Robin Cook: Prime Minister Netanyahu and I had a two-hour meeting, covering the middle east peace process and other regional issues and bilateral relations. I made clear our support for Israel's security, but also set out our concerns about the current state of the peace process and the urgent need to move forward on issues such as the airport and sea port in Gaza, free passage between Gaza and the west bank, an end to the expansion of settlements and further redeployments of Israeli troops from the Palestinian entity. Britain is committed to a successful outcome of the middle east peace process on the basis of peace with security for Israelis and peace with justice for Palestinians.

Mr. Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to encourage progress towards accelerated final status talks between Israel and the Palestinians? Does he agree that we can make a major contribution to the peace process by promoting the economic development necessary to underpin it?

Mr. Cook: I entirely agree that progress towards final status talks would be desirable, but there is a lack of confidence on both sides that an offer of accelerated final status talks would be genuine. There must be some interim agreements as a gesture of good will and good faith to make it possible to proceed.
It is vital that economic progress underpins the peace process. One of the problems in the middle east is that the income and standard of living of most Palestinians have declined during the period of peace. That must be reversed. We must show the people on the back streets of Gaza that the peace process will deliver real improvements in their standard of living.

Mr. Fabricant: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that pressure should be brought to bear on Chairman Arafat, who made certain agreements in Oslo that have not been kept? It is unfair to expect Israel to go beyond the Oslo agreement when that agreement has not been fulfilled.

Mr. Cook: Nobody is asking the Israeli Government to go beyond the Oslo accord. They are being asked to adhere to an agreement that, although it was entered into by a previous Government, is binding on the successor Government, as any international agreement is.

We repeatedly urge on the Palestinian National Authority the need to deliver greater security. To be fair, most international observers agree that there has been an improvement in the authority's efforts on that. However, the authority is not helped in its attempts to improve security if it is denied the money with which to pay its policemen for two months.

Mr. Ernie Ross: As my right hon. Friend knows, 29 November is the 50th anniversary of United Nations Security Council resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine. As we approach that anniversary, has my right hon. Friend been able to impress on the Prime Minister of Israel the need to move towards final status negotiations, to resolve the problems with the Palestinians and to include in those negotiations the right of the Palestinians to a state?

Mr. Cook: It has long been the position of the British Government that the possibility of statehood for the Palestinian entity should not be excluded from the final status talks. The sooner we make progress on interim agreements, such as opening the Gaza sea port and airport, which would be an immense boost to the local economy, the sooner we can reach the final status talks to consider the larger issues.

Environmental Objectives

Mr. Yeo: What recent representations he has received about the environmental objectives of foreign policy. [15996]

Mr. Fatchett: I have had extensive contacts with overseas Governments and with non-governmental organisations, covering a wide range of environmental issues, including in particular the forthcoming Kyoto negotiations on climate change and the UK presidency of the European Union.

Mr. Yeo: A few minutes ago, the Foreign Secretary accepted the urgency of the problem of climate change. As the Prime Minister is always keen to claim a close and friendly working relationship with President Clinton, why have the Government failed even to attempt to persuade the United States of the importance of at least achieving the modest carbon dioxide reduction targets set down at Rio five years ago, let alone the far more challenging targets referred to by the Foreign Secretary earlier?

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman failed to hear my right hon. Friend's earlier response. My right hon. Friend has already told the House of his contacts with the American Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Deputy Prime Minister was in Washington recently and has been talking to many Governments. Unlike the previous Government, we are working for success. We are committed on the environment and we shall make Kyoto a success.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister explain how nuclear weapons, which would spread radioactive fallout throughout the world, fit in with the Government's environmental objective?

Mr. Fatchett: Nuclear weapons will not be under discussion at Kyoto, but of course there is a process of disarmament talks, and I am sure that my hon. Friend wishes those well.

Mr. David Heath: Has the Minister had an opportunity to read early-day motion 461, in the name of the


hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), which deals with the activities of P and O in an ecologically sensitive area of India? In the light of the Government's environmental and ethical policy, does the Minister propose to take any action?

Mr. Fatchett: I must confess that I have not seen the early-day motion; it is night-time reading that I look forward to this evening, and I am sure that it will be impressive. None the less, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we would always expect large organisations to operate in an environmentally sensitive way.

Republic of Ireland

Mr. Barnes: If he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. [15997]

Mr. Doug Henderson: Relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are excellent. The two Governments are working closely in the Northern Ireland talks and in the European Union. Practical co-operation between Government Departments throughout the United Kingdom and their Irish counterparts has been intensified and I, like many of my ministerial colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, have already had substantive meetings with our Irish opposite numbers.

Mr. Barnes: Is the idea of Ireland's rejoining the Commonwealth ever discussed? Mary Robinson suggested that towards the end of her presidency. Is not the Commonwealth today very different from that which Ireland left in 1948? It no longer has imperial pretensions and is an area for tolerance, trade and democracy. Would it not also be attractive to Unionists, in terms of the peace process, to have their British identity recognised?

Mr. Henderson: That is not a matter that I have discussed at my meetings with counterparts in Ireland; it would be a matter for the Irish Government.

Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of the likelihood of devolved government throughout the United Kingdom, would the Minister support unilateral action by Scotland or Wales to create a council for co-operation with the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Henderson: That is something that I would not support.

Visa Applications (Punjab)

Mr. Peter Bradley: What assessment he has made of the difficulties of Punjabi people travelling to New Delhi to pursue applications for entry clearance to the United Kingdom; and if he will establish a consular service in Chandigarh. [15998]

Mr. Fatchett: The size and location of diplomatic posts around the world are under constant review. The difficulties of travelling to New Delhi are well understood, but for logistical and resource reasons there are no plans to open a visa office in Punjab.

Mr. Bradley: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the disappointment with which that statement will be greeted

by many people in the Punjab and by their relatives in this country? Does he realise what long distances people on extremely low incomes must travel to New Delhi on missions to obtain visas, which are often fruitless because of the bureaucracy and inefficiency of the service there? Will he give at least some hope to the people in the Punjab that the matter will be kept constantly under review, and that an innovative solution will be found, such as opening a consular service in Chandigarh for one day a week?

Mr. Fatchett: We always review the possibilities and we are keen to provide the best possible service, but I meant to convey to my hon. Friend the fact that, although the process is under constant review, I cannot give any immediate hope that we will be able to open such a facility.

Export Promotion

Ms Shipley: If he will set out the initiatives taken by his Department to improve its role in export promotion. [15999]

Mr. Robin Cook: Together with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I launched the export forum to examine the effectiveness of Government support for UK exporters. The forum reported in October, and my right hon. Friend and I have accepted the broad thrust of its recommendations.
This morning, I hosted a working breakfast with chief executives and chairmen of some of our top companies whom I have invited to act as ambassadors for British business. Whenever on visits abroad for their companies, they have undertaken to liaise with FCO posts to carry out promotional work for wider business interests. The invitation has been well received by business leaders and should enable the Foreign Office to use their prestige and their expertise to promote British exports and British jobs.

Ms Shipley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his full answer. Does he agree that we need speedy processing of export licences? A medium-sized company, Indentec, in my constituency of Stourbridge needs its licence application resolved, and this has particular relevance in relation to the knock-on effect on small feeder businesses.

Mr. Cook: I can assure my hon. Friend that as soon as I return to the Foreign Office, I will inquire into what has happened to the application. She was good enough to mention before Question Time that this was a licence application for Iran. The House will understand that we need to pay particular attention to the possibility of dual-use equipment going to Iran.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: In relation to the promotion of Scotch whisky experts—[Laughter]—Scotch whisky exports; the Foreign Secretary will realise that that is one of the benefits of drinking Scotch whisky. What progress does he foresee towards the harmonisation of duty within the EU in the near future?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to say that I think I can speak as a whisky expert, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is one of our high priorities to continue to press to make sure that there is fair duty on all alcohol so that our


whisky has a fair opportunity in other markets. That will continue to be one of the major objectives of our European policy.

Mr. Howard: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), is not the only practical consequence of the Foreign Secretary's posturings on these matters that the delays in clearing applications for licences for the export of defence equipment have got so bad that orders have gone elsewhere before approval has been granted?

Mr. Cook: I am not aware of any such case.

Mr. Mackinlay: During his visit to Warsaw and elsewhere in central Europe this week, will the Foreign Secretary take time to compare the offensive marketing and promotion of commercial enterprise by the Germans with that of British business, which is generally tardy, despite one or two flagship companies like British Aerospace and Marks and Spencer which are getting stuck in? Private enterprise in this country does not recognise the vast market potential of central Europe, which is being exploited by others but which we are being slow to pick up on. Will my right hon. Friend take some action?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend tempts me to go slightly further than the brief of the Foreign Office. As regards our contribution to export promotion, since we have been in power we have carried out a major review of our export services; we have attracted 12 new short-term secondments from British business, who are now in key embassies in key markets abroad; and we are looking for more. We have today reached agreement with 37 top business people to promote British business while they are abroad.
I will be spending three days in central Europe this week. I shall be looking for opportunities for British business, and I shall be carrying the clear message that Britain strongly supports central European countries' membership of the EU—a message which I hope will not be entirely lost on Conservative Members. The rest of Europe is queuing up to join a union from which many of them appear to wish to detach themselves.

Gibraltar

Mr. Tyrie: If he will make a statement on the status of Gibraltar. [16001]

Mr. Hoyle: When he next plans to visit Gibraltar. [16007]

Mr. Robin Cook: We stand firmly by the commitment enshrined in the preamble to the 1969 constitution. As I explained to the Spanish Foreign Minister last Friday, there can be no change in sovereignty over Gibraltar against the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

Mr. Tyrie: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is unacceptable that the citizens of Gibraltar are disfranchised, and have no vote in European elections? Now that the Government seem hell-bent on changing the electoral law for the Strasbourg Parliament, will the

Foreign Secretary commit the Government to ensuring that, by one means or another, the citizens of Gibraltar get a vote in the forthcoming European elections?

Mr. Cook: This is not a matter that can be resolved by domestic United Kingdom legislation; it would require a change in the legislation that set up the European Parliament, from which Gibraltar is expressly excluded. Had this been a matter that could have been resolved in that way, the opportunity to resolve it was in 1984, when the Conservative Government allowed the accession of Spain to the EU.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm his support for the 1969 constitution of Gibraltar? Is he as worried as I am by the hypocrisy of Spain, which has two enclaves in Morocco as well as the Canary Islands, which are further away from Madrid than Gibraltar is from London?

Mr. Cook: I can certainly please my hon. Friend by confirming our support for the 1969 constitution, and by reasserting that there will be no change without the agreement of the people of Gibraltar.
I am not entirely sure that it would necessarily help to bring about a resolution of outstanding matters to accuse Spain of hypocrisy, but we have been robust in defending Gibraltar's interests, and will continue to be so.

Mr. Townend: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable that, on a number of occasions, the Spanish authorities have not recognised British passports issued by the Governor in Gibraltar—and, moreover, do not seem to be recognising the identity cards that are produced in accordance with European regulations, and are recognised by the European Union?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issue has been raised with the Spanish authorities by both the present and the last Government. Gibraltar is part of the European Union; as a consequence, its residents have the right to free movement throughout the European Union, which includes Spain.

Employment Summit

Mr. Pickthall: If he will make a statement about the outcome of the Luxembourg special summit on employment. [16002]

Kali Mountford: If he will make a statement about the outcome of the Luxembourg special summit on employment. [16010]

Mr. Robin Cook: I refer my hon. Friends to the statement made yesterday to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Pickthall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the positive outcome of last week's summit. Will he confirm that, while it reflects our "welfare to work" emphasis on employability and flexibility, the discussions made it clear that flexibility would not involve the worsening of conditions in the workplace or more insecurity in employment?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the text of the presidency conclusions, which were agreed


unanimously by those present, stresses employability and adaptability. The guidelines are entirely consistent with Her Majesty's Government's policy of providing a fresh start for young people who have been unemployed for more than six months, and a fresh start for all adults who have been unemployed for more than a year.
The British Government's success in achieving an outcome that is entirely consistent with our policy objectives reflects the fact that the summit only happened at all because we supported the employment chapter in Amsterdam, and because we demanded a special summit through the ECOFIN meeting. The outcome of the meeting is a success for Britain, and it took place only because Britain made tackling the jobs crisis such a high priority.

Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he tell us whether our European partners agree with the Government that the economic growth required to create jobs should be based on a highly skilled rather than an exploited work force?

Mr. Cook: It was a frequent refrain at the summit that we must ensure that more is invested in training. For that reason, the countries involved committed themselves to making training available to 20 per cent. of the unemployed.
My hon. Friend is right. If we are to protect jobs in Europe, we will not do it on the back of low pay and poor working conditions; we will do it only on the back of high investment, high skills and high technology.

Mr. Letwin: Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House why the Prime Minister said in his statement that he wished to avoid old-style state intervention, and then went on to announce 1.5 billion ecu of old-style state subsidies for industry across Europe?

Mr. Cook: First, to be precise, the sum is 1 billion ecu, not 1.5 billion ecu. The hon. Gentleman is 50 per cent. out. Secondly, it was agreed by all members of the European Union that the money would be provided by the European investment bank for investment in high technology and in small and medium-sized enterprises. We are all agreed that the future of Europe and of our economies lies in high technology, and that the future for jobs lies in the small and medium-sized sector. That is precisely why it was right to encourage investment in that sector.

Mr. Brady: Why has youth unemployment been falling rapidly in this country for the past four years, whereas it has been rising rapidly in all the other major European countries?

Mr. Cook: Primarily because the number of young people in Britain has been declining.

Mr. Derek Foster: I congratulate the Government on forcing jobs to the top of the European agenda, but does my right hon. Friend agree that flexible labour markets have very little to do with macho management, hire and fire, and forcing down wages and conditions of service

for staff, and everything to do with high levels of education and training and with releasing the skills and creativity of staff to improve productivity and quality?

Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend makes a profound point. If we are to achieve the long-term aim of good training and high technology, a commitment is required from both management and work force. That is precisely what the social chapter is devised to achieve. That is why we believe that it is so important that the staff of a large enterprise should have ownership of the strategy of the company, through the right to information and consultation under the social chapter.

Social Chapter

Mrs. Browning: If he will make a statement on those provisions for bringing forward legislation in the social chapter which operate under qualified majority voting. [16004]

Mr. Doug Henderson: Under the agreement on social policy, legislation can be adopted by qualified majority in five areas: health and safety; working conditions; information and consultation of workers; equal treatment of men and women at work; and integration of those excluded from the labour market.

Mrs. Browning: If in those five areas a matter should come up that is not in the British interest, how does the Minister propose to protect our interest, now that the Government have given away our veto; or does he anticipate that the Government will automatically agree with every measure in those five areas?

Mr. Henderson: Conservative Members are getting repetitive. Before 1 May, the hon. Lady was a member of a Government who had such bad relationships with Europe that they could make no progress on any front, and particularly on the important front of the employment agenda to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred. Now British people have the opportunity to influence what is happening with the social chapter. That is a big advance, and everyone knows it.

Lockerbie

Mr. Dalyell: What response he has received from the organisation of African states and the Arab League about his invitation to them to inspect the Scottish justice system in relation to Lockerbie. [16005]

Mr. Robin Cook: The initial response of the Arab League and the Organisation of African Unity has been disappointing. The United Nations Secretary-General has accepted our invitation. We continue to press the Arab League and the OAU to send observers to join the visit of UN officials that we hope will take place before the end of the year.

Mr. Dalyell: After nine long years of non-communication, is it unreasonable to ask that an incoming Labour Government should at least talk to the Libyans and hear what they have to say, not least in the light of a written answer from the Home Secretary yesterday following my interview in July with Commander


David Veness of Scotland Yard concerning the circumstances of the murder of Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher, casting doubts—we shall put it no higher—on whether the Libyans were responsible? Before making a final decision not to talk to the Libyans, will my right hon. Friend at least have the Foreign Office lawyers consult Scotland Yard?

Mr. Cook: I have just completed an exchange of correspondence with the Foreign Minister of Libya, in which I made it robustly clear that Britain expects Libya to adhere to the United Nations Security Council resolutions that require it to provide for trial the two men who have been indicted for the mass murder of those travelling on the Pan Am jet and those who were in the village of Lockerbie where it crashed. That remains the Government's position. I am more than happy to have dialogue with all those other countries in the Arab League and the Organisation of African Unity, to remove their doubts, and I am absolutely confident that we can convince them that Scottish justice is fair.
The other matter that my hon. Friend raised is not currently a matter for dispute over the sanctions in relation to Lockerbie. It would help the dialogue between our countries immensely if Libya were to recognise that it has an obligation to provide the two men for trial in order that justice can be done.

Miss McIntosh: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it would set a dangerous precedent in international law if the trial were to take place in a jurisdiction other than Scotland?

Mr. Cook: There are several problems with having a trial in another country. The most immediate is that there is no legal basis for a Scottish court to sit outside the Scottish jurisdiction. The hon. Lady is right that if I were to ask the House for such legal provision, there is a danger that it would create a precedent whereby terrorists could object to trial in our jurisdiction. That is a heavy consideration which we shall weigh carefully.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the nature of my right hon. Friend's answer, I will attempt to get a 14th Adjournment debate on this matter.

Madam Speaker: That cuts out further questions on this issue.

Mr. Dalyell: I did not see my hon. Friend rise.

Madam Speaker: Order. It is the rule.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Fabricant: When he next plans to visit India and Canada. [16006]

Mr. Fatchett: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to visit India again in the near future. He hopes to be able to visit Canada on European Union business in mid-January next year.

Mr. Fabricant: When the Foreign Secretary visits Canada, will he acquaint himself with the events of

24 July 1967, when President de Gaulle visited Quebec and gave his now infamous Quebec libre speech? That might give him some useful hints about what not to say when he next visits Kashmir.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman has reached new depths with that question. Perhaps we should congratulate him on his creativity in that respect. My right hon. Friend is looking forward to and will enjoy his visit to Canada, where he will strengthen our bilateral relations with Canada, as he has with every other country that he has so far visited.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will continue to make it clear to the Governments of Pakistan and India that we stand ready, as we are all members of the Commonwealth, to make available our good offices to enable those two great countries to try to resolve the problems surrounding Kashmir to bring peace and stability to that region and so improve the lives of people in those countries and in Kashmir?

Mr. Fatchett: We have said throughout that we intend to make our good offices available to both parties if that is the wish of both parties, and we stand by that statement.

Sri Lanka

Dr. Stoate: What meetings he has had with representatives of the Government of Sri Lanka since 1 May. [16008]

Mr. Fatchett: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, Mr. Kadiragamar, on 11 September. I also saw Mr. Kadiragamar on 5 June, and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Professor Peiris, on 19 June.

Dr. Stoate: I thank the Minister for that reply. Did he discuss the situation in northern Sri Lanka, which is of great concern to my Tamil constituents?

Mr. Fatchett: I am pleased to confirm that we discussed the situation on each and every occasion. It is important that there is a lasting and just peace for the internal problems of Sri Lanka. We always encourage political dialogue, which we regard as the best way to make progress and deal with the human rights issues that are so important to all communities in Sri Lanka.

Iraq

Dr. Gibson: If he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Iraq. [16011]

Mr. Robin Cook: The UK has had no diplomatic relations with Iraq since 6 February 1991. Last week, I chaired a meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council, which demanded that Iraq accept the unconditional return of UN inspectors. I am pleased that Iraq has now accepted the return of those inspectors, including US inspectors, but we continue to be vigilant to


ensure that the inspectors can carry out in full their mandate to prevent Iraq acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Dr. Gibson: Can the Minister inform the House what we are doing to investigate the biological warfare programme of the Iraqi Government?

Mr. Cook: The report that has been heard in the past week by the United Nations monitoring organisation makes very sober reading, in relation to both the biological and chemical capacities of Iraq. It was reported that Iraqi stocks of VX nerve gas keep increasing and that Saddam Hussein can currently produce sufficient anthrax for two missiles a week. Those are serious and sobering figures that stress the importance of the United Nations being able to carry out in full its mandate to inspect the suspect facilities and to ensure that the world does not allow Saddam Hussein to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Howard: As the Foreign Secretary knows, the Government have the full support of Her Majesty's Opposition in their stance on Iraq. Is he confident that the inspectors will be able to make up the ground that they lost during the period when they were denied access to facilities in Iraq?

Mr. Cook: We have full confidence in the inspectors: it should be remembered that they have managed to destroy more weapons in Iraq during the period of inspection than were destroyed during the Gulf war. Their continuing to achieve that will depend entirely on whether or not the inspectors get full compliance from the Iraqi authorities and we are carefully monitoring that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to draw attention to the damage done by the interruption to the inspection regime. We believe that Saddam Hussein has used that period to shift material to secret sites; it might take some time to uncover those, but we are determined that it should be done.

Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend continue to press the UN Security Council to set up a permanent war crimes tribunal, so that Saddam Hussein and his closest associates can be tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will know that the Government fully support the two existing war crimes tribunals—one on the former Yugoslavia and one on Rwanda. It is also our position that a prosecution for a war crime or genocide should not depend on an ad hoc resolution of the Security Council. It is for that reason that the Government firmly support the case for an international criminal court where such crimes could be tried and where we could make sure that international law was firmly applied and that nobody could commit war crimes and genocide with impunity.

Strategic Defence Review

Mr. Gray: When he plans next to meet the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the foreign policy basis for the strategic defence review. [16012]

Mr. Doug Henderson: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will remain in close touch with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the strategic defence review as on the many other matters on which we work together.

Mr. Gray: Is the Minister not concerned that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury might well be even more diligent in meetings with the Secretary of State for Defence? Will he not accept that the strategic defence review is entirely Treasury driven? If his answer to that question is no, will he stake his reputation on that?

Mr. Henderson: I stake my reputation on every answer to every question, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the defence review is Foreign Office led. When determining how to meet Britain's needs, foreign affairs dictate it and defence ensures that it happens.

European Union

Mr. Alan W. Williams: If he will make a statement on the responsibilities of his Department in promoting enlargement of the European Union and in drawing up Agenda 2000. [16013]

Mr. Robin Cook: We have lead responsibility within the Government for policy towards the European Union, including enlargement. The Department also co-ordinates the Government's overall position on Agenda 2000. Tonight, I depart on a tour of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland to prepare for the launch under the British presidency of negotiations on enlargement and to assure those countries of Britain's firm commitment to opening the doors of the European Union to the new democracies of central Europe.

Mr. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that enlargement must involve substantial reform of the common agricultural policy? In the past, there has been a tendency to allow the CAP to be discussed only by farm Ministers, or the Council of Agriculture Ministers. Will he ensure that his Department and others are intimately involved in reform of the CAP? Sixty per cent. of the EU budget is spent on a system that is in need of dramatic reform and that money should be redirected toward other more productive uses.

Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the matter was discussed by the Foreign Ministers of Europe only yesterday and that it is a priority of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is plainly not satisfactory that we should go into the next century with 50 per cent. of Europe's budget being spent on an industry in which less than 5 per cent. of the work force are engaged. We shall continue to press for realistic reforms.

European Co-operation

Mr. Skinner: How many times he has met EU Foreign Ministers since 1 May to discuss European co-operation. [16015]

Mr. Doug Henderson: I have met European Foreign Ministers on many occasions since 1 May.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that we—and he and the Foreign Office team in particular—should not get too starry-eyed about European co-operation? We have already heard at today's Question Time that the Common Market is in dispute over the Arab-Israeli argument and there is not agreement about Iraq or about Gibraltar. The reason why there are hundreds of people lobbying for mining jobs today is that when those in the Common Market who took the decisions had the chance to do so,

they never bought the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe. Those are the facts and I think that we ought to bear them in mind.

Mr. Henderson: I assure my hon. Friend that I am never starry-eyed about any negotiation. I also assure him that since 1 May, the Labour Government have worked diligently and hard to get a better deal for Britain on a wide range of issues, including the Amsterdam treaty. We have been able to succeed because we have been in the dialogue, making our view count. That is what has made the difference in comparison with the performance of the last Government.

Pre-Budget Statement

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The purpose of this, the first annual pre-Budget statement, is to report the Government's assessment of the economy, to outline our Budget aims and to encourage an informed debate of the detailed choices before us. To achieve our national economic objectives, high growth and high levels of employment, the next Budget must address three challenges.
The first challenge is to increase our productivity. Britain today is some 20 per cent. less productive than our main competitors and has been for years. The second challenge is that of employment. Some 3.5 million working-age households—almost 20 per cent.—include no one earning a wage. The third is the challenge of stability. For 40 years, our economy has had an unenviable history under Governments of both parties of boom and bust. Stop-go has meant higher interest rates, less investment, fewer successful companies, and lost jobs. It has been the inevitable result of a failure to take a long-term view.
So the real choice facing Britain in the coming Budget and beyond is between muddling through as we have done for decades from one stop-go cycle to another, or breaking with our past, burying short-termism and securing long-term strength through stability, sustained increases in productivity and employment opportunity for all. This is not a challenge for Government alone. It is a challenge that must also engage both the understanding and the commitment, indeed the energies, of all of us— Government, investors, managers, work forces—together.
So at the heart of this pre-Budget report is the recognition that only by greater openness and informed debate can Britain achieve that shared understanding of the tasks ahead and that shared sense of national economic purpose that has eluded us for too long.
First is stability. The major industrialised countries are expected to grow by 2¾ per cent. this year and 2½ per cent. next year, despite the recent turbulence that we have seen in Asian economies and financial markets. It is imperative that Governments and central banks around the world remain vigilant, but at all times it is the task of Government to ensure a long-term stable framework— exactly the approach that the Government are pursuing.
When we came to power, the economy was already facing yet again the very pressures that have produced the boom-bust instability of the past. Consumer demand was accelerating. It was growing three times as fast as industrial production, as more than £30 billion was released in building society windfall payments. Inflation was predicted to go far beyond its 2½ per cent. target, and was expected to rise towards 4 per cent. next year.
All that was happening because the necessary decisions on monetary and fiscal policy had not been taken. It is because the Labour Government have learnt the lessons from past instability, when interest rates rose into double figures to 15 per cent. in the last economic cycle that, starting in May, we put in place a new monetary and fiscal framework.
Following our reforms at the Bank of England, long-term interest rates have come down, and no one doubts the Bank of England's determination to achieve

the Government's inflation target. With our five-year deficit reduction plan, public borrowing, which was £23 billion last year, is now forecast—excluding the windfall tax revenue—to be £12 billion this year and £6 billion next year.
We said in our manifesto that we would work within existing spending limits, and this we are also achieving as we promised. The deficit has fallen from 4½ per cent. of national income just two years ago to just 1½ per cent. this year, and it will be ¾ per cent. next year, well within the Maastricht criteria.
There is a risk that the structural deficit, which takes account of the economic cycle, may turn out to be larger, so we shall be both cautious and prudent. I can tell the House that we will not make the mistakes of 1988, when it was wrongly assumed that the structural deficit had disappeared, and the penalty was the return to boom and bust.
Although I recognise the concern of exporters about the exchange rate, I understand that what companies fear most of all is a return to that boom-bust instability of the past. So this summer and autumn, hard decisions have had to be taken on both interest rates and deficit reduction, and I am now more optimistic that we are on course to put the economy on track for stable and sustainable growth.
It is to reinforce our commitment to the long term that we shall publish proposals for a code of fiscal stability. We shall legislate so that there is a duty on Government to report to Parliament on how they are meeting their fiscal rules; in that way, everyone can plan for the future on a much clearer and better informed basis.
Let me explain why meeting our fiscal rules matters so much—why they are essential preconditions for long-term social and economic progress. It is because the borrowing levels that we inherited are costing the country £25 billion a year in interest payments alone, which is more than our country's total budget for schools, that we had to act. Our aim is to reduce the huge sums spent simply servicing debts, so that more of our money can be spent on meeting the people's priorities.
The prize for this country, valued especially by a Government who are committed to good public services, is sustainable public finances that allow consistent and long-term investment in our priorities.
By reallocating resources, we shall be investing an additional £2.3 billion in education over and above that planned by the previous Government; and this year we shall be investing an extra £300 million in patient care in the national health service and next year an extra £1.2 billion over and above what the previous Government planned. I can tell the House that, as our comprehensive spending review reallocates resources towards higher-priority areas, there will be real year-on-year increases in spending on front-line patient care.
The key to strong public services is long-term prosperity through higher productivity. Government, industry and people must work together to systematically remove all barriers to high productivity—in product markets by encouraging competition and innovation, in capital markets by measures to enhance investment and growth, not least for innovative small businesses, and in the workplace by encouraging the creativity and flexibility of inventors, of managers and of the work force.
After our successful Budget initiative in July to encourage one of the most neglected of our creative industries—film—it is time to do more to encourage other creative industries where, from science, computer software and communications to design, fashion and music, our British genius for creativity has made Britain a world leader. This year, entrepreneurs in small and medium-sized companies can draw on £200 million, as we have doubled capital allowances to invest in new technology. From next year, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts will make grants available to encourage creative talents and industries.
I can also say today that, in advance of the Budget, the President of the Board of Trade and I are examining how to improve productivity, how we can help leading-edge businesses to gain funds to develop new technologies, how we can improve Britain's poor historical record of investment in research and development, and how we can make it easier for small businesses to draw on venture capital to create jobs in a more entrepreneurial culture. It is to encourage and reward long-term investment that we are completing a review of capital gains tax, the conclusions of which will be announced in the Budget.
Our poor record of investment in Britain also reflects a low level of national savings. Half the national population have hardly any savings. To encourage more people to save, we will be introducing from April 1999 new, individual savings accounts, the details of which will be put out to consultation next Tuesday in advance of the Budget.
However, there is one decision on investment that should not be delayed. In July we implemented the first stage of corporate tax reform. We cut the main rate of corporation tax by 2 per cent. to 31 per cent.—its lowest level ever. Following the abolition of payable tax credits we began to consult, as promised, on the second stage. Advance corporation tax, it has become abundantly clear, is now a hindrance to sensible business planning and investment decisions. Britain needs a reformed system that matches the needs of modern companies and favours the long term.
To allow companies to plan ahead I can confirm today that, in April 1999, advance corporation tax will be abolished. At that point we shall begin the move to paying corporation tax by quarterly instalments. Small companies will be exempt from this change; special arrangements will be made for medium-sized companies; we shall phase in the change over four years; and we shall substantially preserve companies' expectations for using their existing surplus ACT.
This afternoon the Inland Revenue is publishing full details of the proposed changes and we shall now start consultation on their implementation. In order to help ease the transitional costs and to take one stage further our pro-business and pro-investment agenda, in the Budget the main rate of corporation tax will be cut again by 1 per cent. to 30 per cent. from April 1999—that will be the lowest tax rate of any major industrialised country.
The July Budget started from the understanding that the greatest waste of our economic potential and the most serious cause of poverty is unemployment. It denies opportunity to 3.5 million working-age households where

nobody works. In July, we said that, instead of simply compensating people for unemployment, our priority is to tackle the root causes of unemployment and poverty by providing new opportunities for work.
In the past few months, with the help of Martin Taylor, the Government have been systematically addressing all the obstacles that prevent people taking up and benefiting from work: the absence of workplace skills, the failure of the tax and benefit system to make work worth while, the poverty and unemployment traps that for too many people mean that work does not pay, the lack of employment opportunities and the scarcity of affordable child care.
We have concluded that, to help people move from benefits to wages, nothing less than a comprehensive tax and benefit reform and the modernisation of the welfare state are now required. This strategy involves three basic elements: providing skills for work, making work pay and creating new job opportunities.
First, in order to offer skill for work, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will shortly publish his proposals for individual learning accounts and for the university for industry.
Secondly, I want everyone who can work to be better off in work than on benefit, so the Government now propose an integrated tax and benefits plan involving action at every level. In order to maximise the rewards from work, a 10p starting rate of tax and a reform of benefit tapers will be introduced when it is prudent to do so. To ensure that work pays for families with children, we propose a working families tax credit, backed up by affordable child care. To ensure that the rewards of these reforms flow directly to the employee, we are committed to a statutory national minimum wage.
We shall now consider in detail the working families tax credit—cash paid through the wage packet directly to families on low incomes, side by side with the national minimum wage. The proposal would build on the successful elements of family credit, and would involve better help through the tax system for child care costs.
We will now also consider the future structure of national insurance for the low-paid. Under the current system, some low-paid employees face marginal tax rates of more than 100 per cent. To improve the rewards from work, to simplify administrative burdens on employers, as we want to do, and to encourage them to take on more people, it is now right to consider the scope for bringing the national insurance structure for the low-paid more closely into line with income tax.
Finally, there are men and women who have been excluded for too long, and who need extra help to get back into work. In the Budget, we made our start by announcing a new deal worth £4 billion that provides jobs for young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, lone parents and the disabled. The new deal for the young unemployed will start in January in pilot, and extend nationwide in April, with the support of some of our best known companies.
I can announce today that some of Britain's leading rail and bus companies have agreed to play their part, by introducing a new travel pass for young people on our new deal, cutting by at least 50 per cent. their travel fares to work.
Disabled men and women who want to work should also have the right to work. As the first step in implementing the £195 million programme for people with disabilities, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Social Security will now be inviting bids for the first wave of new projects to start in spring 1998.
Helping lone parents into work is the most effective long-term way to tackle their family poverty. The new deal for lone parents began in eight areas in July. Already it is yielding results where it counts—in higher living standards for lone-parent families. From next year, our welfare-to-work programme will be extended to help every lone parent who wants advice and help, and from April every lone parent coming on to benefit will be offered help to find work, if that is what he or she wants.
Lone parents need, and have a right to expect, affordable child care. Since May, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Social Security have been working with the Treasury on plans to make a reality of a national child care strategy. Paramount in this family policy are the interests of the child. Tomorrow, my right hon. Friends will announce a five-year plan to extend out-of-school child care clubs to every community in Britain.
Funds will be available to set up as many as 30,000 new out-of-school clubs, which will provide places for almost 1 million children. The total cost over five years is £300 million, which is now budgeted for in our plans and represents the biggest ever investment in child care. The cost will be shared between the Exchequer and the new opportunities fund.
To staff these new clubs, 50,000 young people across Britain will be offered training as child carers through our welfare-to-work programme. Under our plan, every lone parent who needs it will be able to find an out-of-school club in his or her community. A national child care strategy is no longer the ambition of workless parents; it is now the policy of this country's Government.
While one in five working-age households have no one working, we also, unfortunately, have extensive skill shortages throughout our economy. The proportion of manufacturing firms reporting skill shortages is up 70 per cent. on a year ago.
We will now introduce pilot projects nationwide, under which any employer who takes on and trains a young or long-term unemployed person and keeps that person on can receive up to three quarters of the new deal allocation up front, thus giving immediate help with training costs. In the case of young people, that will be about £1,700, and for the long-term unemployed, £1,500 for their training.
Those skill shortages are a clear sign of the short-term pressures in the economy that must be tackled. At around this point in every recent recovery, when inflation and interest rates have started to rise, a second wave of wage inflation has brought a recurrence of stop-go instability. Past Governments have allowed themselves to be diverted from their long-term aims because of their inability to deal with these short-term pressures.
This time, we must do everything we can to make sure that the long term takes priority. It is because the previous Government held a simplistic and over-rigid view of the relationship between levels of inflation and levels of unemployment that they told us that high unemployment was a price worth paying.
However, there are three reasons to believe that, provided reform and responsibility go hand in hand, it is possible to lay the foundations to deliver both low inflation and high employment in the long term. First, the more our welfare-to-work reforms allow the long-term unemployed to re-enter the active labour market, the more it will be possible to reduce unemployment without increasing inflationary pressures.
Secondly, tax and benefit reforms that remove the barriers to work and structural reforms that promote the skills for work—in other words, Government intervention to create a more responsive labour market— can make possible long-term increases in employment without fuelling inflationary pressures. The more people return to the world of work and the more we tackle skills shortages, the less pressure there is on employers to bid up wages in the short term.
Thirdly, the reality of the more complex and flexible labour markets of Britain today is that pay decisions are made not by the few in smoke-filled rooms, but by millions of employers and employees across the country. The more we all take a long-term view of what the economy can afford, the more we will be able to have job creation and keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible. So we must all be long-termists now.
The reforms that we are introducing will, of course, take time, but it is in no one's interests if today's pay rise threatens to become tomorrow's mortgage rise. The worst form of short-termism would be to pay ourselves more today at the cost of fewer jobs tomorrow and lower living standards in the very near future. So wage responsibility is a price worth paying to achieve jobs now and prosperity in the long term: it is moderation for a purpose.
The choice is between responsibility and reform that would give us higher growth and more jobs, and short-sighted short-termism that will inevitably mean less growth and fewer jobs. In our forecasts for the coming two years, we demonstrate clearly the choices that we all face. If the economy works in the same way as in the past, growth might be 2¼ per cent. next year. If we can combine our reforms with responsibility across the economy, it is possible to achieve growth of 2¾ per cent. next year. Similarly, growth can be 1½ per cent. or 2 per cent. in 1999–2000. In either case, the Bank of England will ensure that the Government's inflation target is met.
So the more successful we are in tackling skills shortages and ensuring the success of the new deal for the unemployed and the more effective the exercise of responsibility in pay determination, the more we can achieve our goals of sustained growth and employment.
I have today submitted this new evidence to the public sector pay review bodies and met the chairmen to explain the choices before us. Just as the Government are offering leadership with responsibility in monetary policy and the management of public finances so that we can achieve those higher levels of growth and employment, so must business leaders and work forces match that with responsibility throughout the whole economy. That means responsibility not just on the shop floor, but from Britain's boardrooms outwards, where, in the interests of all, there must be moderation, not excess, and where an example should be set.
We recognise that, if we are to achieve our long-term goals and secure that new sense of economic purpose, fairness and openness must be at the heart of the approach


to every Budget. Tax avoidance harms those who pay their fair share of taxes. 1 give notice today that the Budget will introduce those measures that are needed to root out tax avoidance. A fair and open approach to taxation will also be central to our Budget consultations now under way on North sea oil; on alcohol, where the review will conclude early next year; and on charities, where we are working towards a consultation document next spring.
In securing the long term, nothing is more important than our approach to the environment. On Thursday, the Deputy Prime Minister will publish a consultation paper on ways to help with water pollution, with a view to making proposals in the coming Budget. Together we are also looking at how the tax system can reflect our environmental objectives, and we shall do so in light of decisions taken at Kyoto.
In this pre-Budget statement, we are consulting in all areas where it is right and appropriate to consult, we are taking action in all those areas where action is needed immediately, and we are putting to the country the choices for debate—choices that can be made only by us all.
I promised to make one other announcement today. Following a review by Customs and Excise, which will be published tomorrow, I have decided that VAT on the installation of energy-saving materials under existing grant schemes, such as the home energy efficiency scheme, will be cut from 17½ per cent. to 5 per cent. in the spring Budget of 1998. That means that the funds under the schemes will go further and will help to insulate 40,000 more homes per year. The Government will now explore with our European partners the possibility of a reduced VAT rate for a wider range of energy-saving materials.
Our spending review, like our tax policy, is based on allocating resources according to priorities of investment, employment and fairness, so already, within the Government's tough spending limits, we have redistributed resources to priority sectors: from assisted places to cutting class sizes; £4 billion from the windfall tax paid by the utilities to creating jobs; another £1 billion to repairing our schools; from the defence and nuclear programme to the national health service. After the publication of the national asset register yesterday, there will be new scope to reallocate resources to high-priority capital investment.
I can announce one further reallocation today. I now expect our net payments to the European Union to be some £400 million lower than budgeted. Our pensions review is examining the long-term future of pension provision in Britain, including how we can do more to support Britain's poorest pensioners. We must help the thousands who do not claim benefits, but who need them most.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women is announcing today that she will finance several projects to find the best way in which to encourage improved benefits take-up by the poorest pensioners, so that they receive what they need.
We have already cut VAT on fuel and power to 5 per cent., as we promised, but it would be wrong to wait until we have the results of our pensions review to take action to help elderly people with winter fuel bills. Although the poorest do receive some help through cold weather

payments, they go only to those on income support, who generally have to wait until after the cold weather for help to be available. The payments are no help at all to most pensioners, including the 1 million not receiving income support entitlements and those on the margins of poverty, and they are of doubtful help even to those who do qualify, who often do not know whether they can afford to spend extra money on fuel when it is cold.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and I are simply not prepared to allow another winter to go by when pensioners are fearful of turning up their heating, even on the coldest winter days, because they do not know whether they will have the help they need for their fuel bills. The pensions review will report next year, but we must act in the meantime to help pensioner households.
For this winter and next, every pensioner household will receive £20 extra to help with their bills and every pensioner household on income support—nearly 2 million households—will receive £50 extra. The cost will be met from reallocating the savings on our contribution to the European budget.
The money will be paid in time to meet winter fuel bills, so every pensioner household in Britain will have the benefit of the Government's cut in VAT on fuel, our abolition of the gas levy, new and tougher regulation and competition in the utilities, and the Government's new fuel payment to pensioners. As a result of those changes, the average pensioner household will be helped by up to £100 a year, and poorer pensioner households on income support will be helped by up to £130 a year.
In contrast with the previous Government, who put VAT on fuel, this Government keep their promises and are prepared to take action where it needs to be taken. It is a Government who are meeting the people's priorities, even as we confront the difficult choices that our country must make to build for the long term. In 1997, we have made a start and we will do more year on year. Our approach to the coming Budget shows that we are already setting a new course for Britain, and building a united country where everyone has opportunity and a contribution to make. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr. Peter Lilley: I begin by welcoming some aspects of the Chancellor's statement. In particular, I welcome the good economic news that underlies the Chancellor's forecasts that were published today—stronger economic growth bringing higher tax revenues, lower spending as unemployment falls and the consequent reduction in borrowing. Are they not the result of the golden economic legacy that we bequeathed the Government—the fruit of 18 years of Conservative reforms, every one of which the Chancellor opposed?
Does the Chancellor agree with the last Labour Chancellor, the noble Lord Healey, who said:
We must remember that rarely, if ever, have a Government had such cause to be grateful to their predecessor when it comes to the economy"?
Will not the figures that the Chancellor has published today prove that his July tax-raising Budget was unnecessary? He did not need to break the Prime Minister's solemn election pledge:>
We have no need to raise taxes at all".


He did not need to raise 17 taxes or impose a £5 billion-a-year pensions tax on people's savings. The simple truth is that he was determined to increase taxes in July, so that he could increase spending later.
In his statement and in the document he has published today, the Chancellor has promised us a fiscal stability code. We are happy to welcome that, but can he confirm what his officials are reported as telling the Financial Times: that it will not involve him publishing any information that the Government do not publish anyway? Does not his real motive have nothing to do with what happened under a previous Conservative Chancellor but all to do with what has happened under previous Labour Chancellors, all of whom have been engulfed by the spending demands from their Back Benchers? Previous Labour Chancellors have also tried similar devices to strap themselves to the mast of fiscal rectitude. The code seems to be an even flimsier cord, which will break under the strain of the demand from the Government Back Benches.
The Chancellor hints that he will reduce taxes soon. Is not the truth that none of his proposals will do much to help the typical home-owning family facing £650 a year in higher costs as a result of his mortgage increases, the cut in mortgage tax relief that he introduced and the tax on pension funds that he announced earlier this year, to say nothing of the £1,000 in tuition fees that every family with a student at university will have to pay?
In his document, the Chancellor proposes introducing a 10p basic rate of tax. The Opposition welcome any reduction in tax from a Chancellor who, so far, has broken his clear promise not to raise taxes, and has increased 17 taxes. We shall want to see that any new tax band results in a real tax cut, and is not paid for by messing around with personal allowances.
We shall not allow the Chancellor to get away with a pretence that the reduction is focused on the poor and those on benefits. Will he confirm the figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies which show that a 10p lower-rate band that was worth £6 a week to a wealthy couple such as the Prime Minister and his wife would be worth only 9p a week to a family on in-work benefits? What other measures does he plan to introduce to benefit those on low pay?
Why is there not more detail in the Chancellor's proposal about the earned income tax credit? Has he cleared his proposal with the Minister for Welfare Reform, who is on record as opposing the payment of family credit as an earned income tax credit because
more money will get to children … if we pay the money to mothers rather than to fathers".?—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 March 1986; c. 949.]
However sceptical Opposition Members may be about the Chancellor's make-work schemes and welfare-to-work proposals, we want to see them work. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to have my scepticism disproved. However, will he confirm that—so far, before his scheme has even got off the ground—the previous Government's dynamic labour market reforms and the jobseeker's allowance have succeeded in getting off the dole half the young people he wanted to help?
Will the Chancellor confirm that he has now abandoned the pledge made by the then employment spokesman, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), that a

Labour Government would abolish the jobseeker's allowance, and that that pledge has gone the way of so many others?
The Chancellor mentioned the position of disabled people. Opposition Members have always believed in getting able-bodied people into work. We realise, however, that most disabled people cannot work, and deserve extra help, through the disability living allowance, the disability working allowance and severe disability premium. The previous Government introduced those benefits, and we were proud to increase spending on the disabled to four times the level spent by the Labour party. Will he say, here and now, that he will rule out cutting, taxing and means-testing benefits for the disabled, despite the prevalent rumours that are worrying disabled people?
The statement contains remarkably little on tax reform. What it does contain is an announcement that the Chancellor is abolishing advance corporation tax for those who pay dividends, but that he is introducing advance payments of corporation tax for everyone. The announcement merely shows that the pensions tax announced in his Budget had not been thought through. Nothing in the changes will reduce by a penny the £5 billion-a-year burden that he has imposed on pension funds.
It is clear also that the Chancellor has not thought through the consequences of the pensions tax on encouraging people to opt back into the state earnings-related pension scheme. Is he aware that many pensions providers were hoping today to have an assurance from him that he will increase the rebate, to make it worth while for people to stay outside the state scheme and inside personal and occupational schemes? Is he aware that, without such an assurance, pensions providers will advise all their customers to opt back into the state scheme? Is that what he wants?
We welcome the proposals for environmental, green taxes, if the revenues he raises from them are recycled to reduce the costs of employment, and to ensure that more people get jobs.
Does the Chancellor realise that most outside observers will think that his statement today is disappointing? It contains so little detail on future tax reforms, despite what we have been promised, so little to reassure savers who have been disturbed by his proposals and so little to clarify the confusion surrounding all his welfare reforms.
Above all, home owners, savers and taxpayers will be disappointed that there is nothing in the statement to undo the cost to them that the Government have already inflicted by five interest rate increases, 17 tax rises and a cruel tax on their pension funds.

Mr. Brown: After hearing the shadow Chancellor, the country will understand how fortunate it was to get rid of the Conservative Government in May. On 1 May, the Conservatives were not fit to be the Government of the United Kingdom; after Winchester last Thursday, they are not fit even to be the Opposition. The shadow Chancellor talked about statistics deteriorating since May, but the biggest deterioration has been from minus 2 to minus 21,000 in Winchester.
The shadow Chancellor spoke for some time, but he did not mention once what the Government have done for pensioners and their fuel bills. Why does he not congratulate us on doing what the previous Government


failed to do on tackling fuel poverty? Even now, why does he not apologise for the previous Government putting VAT on fuel?
As for economic policy, the shadow Chancellor suggested that he agreed with what I have been doing, but he opposed our monetary policy reforms and even now he cannot tell us whether he would make the Bank of England independent or stop it being independent. He opposed our five-year deficit reduction plan, and even now he cannot tell us whether he thinks that our figures are too high, right or too low. He opposed our windfall tax to pay for the welfare-to-work programme; so, much as he says that he wants it to work, he would have done nothing to make it possible.
As for stability under the previous Government and what the shadow Chancellor hopes will be achieved under this Government, the people of this country will never forget what happened during the last recession, when interest rates went up to 15 per cent. and inflation went up to 10 per cent. The previous Government squandered the surplus they had, and destroyed thousands of businesses and 1.5 million jobs through their economic mistakes. Until we hear something that persuades the House that the Opposition would not make those mistakes in the future, it is hardly worth the shadow Chancellor coming to the House to give us his views.
As for taxation, the shadow Chancellor suggested—at lunchtime today—that we are responsible for 17 tax rises. Half of those are the closing of tax avoidance loopholes that should have been closed long ago. The others, such as petrol duty rises, are supported by the Conservative party.
Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate us on cutting corporation tax, first in May and again today? Will he congratulate us on another cut in VAT on fuel? Will he congratulate us on cutting VAT on energy-saving materials? Will he congratulate us on abolishing the gas levy? Will he congratulate us on our proposals for a 10p tax rate and on improving the tax position of low-paid workers, whom the previous Administration ignored for 18 years?
It is not the Labour party that is not trusted on tax: it is the Conservative party that will never be trusted on tax again. The shadow Chancellor should think again about his proposals before the election, which he has not withdrawn, to remove tax relief from pension contributions paid by millions of people.
Finally, I shall deal with the other points that the shadow Chancellor made. [Interruption.] I am happy to speak longer and to give the Opposition a lecture on economic policy. On the question of the unemployed, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that 370,000 young people under 25 are still out of work? Does he not realise that 400,000 people have been unemployed for more than a year? Does he not realise that 3.5 million families have nobody working? Surely he should support not only our welfare-to-work programme but the action we took, through the windfall tax, to make it possible.
As far as the disabled are concerned, it was not the Labour party that cut invalidity benefit for the disabled and changed it into incapacity benefit: it was the Conservative party. I should have thought that the shadow Chancellor would welcome the fact that we will provide opportunities for many disabled people who were denied the right to work under the previous Government.
On 1 May, there was a vote of no confidence in the Conservative party, which was repeated in Winchester. The Conservative party is divided and without policy. It is incapable of telling us what its policies are for the future, and it has nothing to offer the country.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Liberal Democrats welcome this consultative Budget, which we think should help to improve the quality of the real Budget. We intend to submit our proposals to the Chancellor shortly, and we hope that the Conservative party will do likewise, to make this a constructive exercise.
We also welcome the code of fiscal stability, which we advocated last year; the proposals for the integration of tax and benefits, which we have long advocated; the cut in VAT on insulation materials; and the help for pensioners. I am happy to thank the Chancellor for those proposals.
There are a couple of points of concern in the Chancellor's economic forecasting. He has revised down the growth forecast for 1999–2000 by 0.5 per cent. and has revised up the inflation forecast by 0.5 per cent.— well above his inflation target. That suggests that there are some storm clouds ahead. I should be grateful for a comment on that. Should not Budgets involve expenditure as well as income? In that sense, is not this a Polo mint of a statement, with a hole in the middle where the spending plans ought to be?
Why is the Chancellor's press office briefing that the long-term objective of a 10p starting rate of tax should be delivered by next March, when the short-term pledges of bringing down NHS waiting lists and class sizes will have to wait until later in the Parliament? He has found the money for cuts in income tax and corporation tax. How can he find the money to cut taxes, but not the money to spend to stop hospital waiting lists rising or class sizes reaching a 20-year high? Are not those the people's priorities that he claimed to be fighting for?
The consultative Budget is a welcome innovation, but we need action to improve the NHS and education this year. Will the Chancellor confirm the figures that his colleague the Chief Secretary gave me last year, showing that there is £2 billion unallocated in the contingency fund? Should not that be used to meet the immediate needs of health and education? Will he also confirm that the control total is coming in lower than was planned by the Conservatives, which also gives him room to manoeuvre? Does the earned income tax credit require the ending of the independent review of taxation of husbands and wives?
I represent an area with a high engagement in oil and gas activity. Will the Chancellor accept that a review of taxation for oil and gas will not prejudice the long-term investment and financial viability of that vital industry? Will he acknowledge that, until he drops his Tory spending plans, national health service patients and those who rely on our state schools will be forced to conclude that, although the Tories are no longer in office, they are still in power in his Department? By the way, I think that he should be reminded who won Winchester.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting our code for fiscal stability, our reforms at the Bank of England—reforms that the official Opposition cannot support—and our intention to have an open


consultation process on the Budget. I assure him that he and others will be able to contribute fairly to the review of North sea energy.
However, I have to part company with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we have not switched resources. We have transferred resources to health from defence and the nuclear programme—£300 million this year. We have transferred resources from the assisted places scheme to school class sizes. We are transferring resources next year to education, along with £1.2 billion to the health service.
The Liberal Democrats proposed £1 billion over two years for health. We have put in £1.5 billion— £500 million more. The Liberal Democrat proposals for the schools capital investment scheme—[Interruption.] They may be embarrassed, but they should hear this. They proposed putting in £500 million. We have put in £1.2 billion, which will rise to a great deal more with private capital. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that he opposed the windfall tax that is raising the money for education and employment.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that, during the debate on the Queen's Speech in May, the leader of his party said:
If we tighten our belt now, we have a real opportunity to get to grips with the huge hangover of debt left behind by the Conservatives."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 74.]
The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that there had to be fiscal prudence, but the Treasury spokesman goes to every by-election promising millions of pounds more, without giving anyone a clue about how the money can be raised. In their literature for the two by-elections last week, did the Liberal Democrats mention the lp extra on income tax, the 10p increase in the top rate of tax or their new environmental taxes? They have suddenly become coy about the means by which they would pay for their programme, and we do not see it in their election manifestos.
It is all very well to will the end, but if the Liberal Democrats are not prepared to will the means, by taking tough decisions about the use of resources as the leader of their party suggested he wanted to do— [Interruption.]—they are not fit even to make their presence felt in the House in the way that they are suggesting. They should go back to their constituencies and prepare to adopt reality.

Mr. Giles Radice: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on publishing a pre-Budget report. It is high time that we moved away from the doctrine of pre-Budget purdah and had a more civilised, informed and open discussion of ideas and policies. Of course, the Treasury Select Committee will want to talk to him about the issues that he has raised in his statement, but may I now warmly welcome the help that he has announced for pensioners, which will be most welcome in my constituency? May I also strongly support the idea of a code for fiscal stability, which I believe will help good housekeeping and improve accountability?

Mr. Brown: I shall be happy to work with the Treasury Select Committee, and my hon. Friend knows that he will receive whatever evidence he needs so that the Committee can make comments before the Budget.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is the Chancellor aware that, after announcing some small and, on the

whole, welcome spending increases and skipping over the spending cuts that he proposes to make in benefits for the disabled, defence and elsewhere, he has still announced public sector borrowing requirement figures that show him reducing public sector borrowing at a rapid rate, and even likely to hit a period of debt repayment that he never intended, despite the fact that we have one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the western world?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that that underlines the fact that his July Budget was unnecessary, and that the most courageous social step he could have taken was to reverse his taxation changes affecting pension funds? That would have been the most significant announcement on social policy for the longer term that he could have made today.
As for the other changes in the forecast, has the Chancellor noticed that the Bank of England now forecasts that, as a result both of rapid increases in interest rates and the increase in the exchange rate that has resulted, and of tight fiscal policy, it expects economic growth to fall away very rapidly next year, and possibly to disappear? Does he accept that nothing he has announced today could have a significant effect on that?
Does the right hon. Gentleman really stake his reputation on the forecast of 2.75 per cent. growth next year, which seems highly unlikely? Will he stop justifying what he says with constant references to the late 1980s, when circumstances bore no relation to what we see now, earnings were running away at 8 per cent. per year, there was a balance of payments crisis, and economic growth of 4 per cent. had been running for two or three years?
Before the right hon. Gentleman revives the myth that the Conservative Government were profligate big spenders, reckless on inflation—that was not what he said in opposition—will he not accept that he inherited stable growth with low inflation, falling unemployment and public finances that have surprised him by how rapidly they are improving? Will he go back to the drawing board and consult genuinely on a more constructive long-term economic policy that might protect living standards and jobs?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for the chance to continue my debates with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not know which will happen more quickly—his reaching the leadership of the Conservative party or the Conservative party's no longer existing to be led.
As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's three points, first I shall tell him why my July Budget was needed. First, it was needed to cut VAT on fuel, which he had refused to do. Secondly, there was the introduction of the windfall levy that was necessary for our welfare-to-work programme. Thirdly, I had to introduce measures for stability that he had failed to introduce during the three years that he was Chancellor.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to create a myth about the difference between his record, which he wants to promote, and that of Lord Lawson, whom he is happy to see remain in a difficult position. I have to tell him that, when we came into office, we were told that inflation was forecast to rise way beyond the target. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the Bank of England was telling him for six months before the general election that, on its understanding of the position, interest rates should have risen.
I was not prepared to go back to a situation, as in the late 1980s, where interest rates had to rise late because the action to tackle inflation had not been taken, forcing the country into the stop-go instability of recession. Let us remind the Conservatives that, in 1990, interest rates went up to 15 per cent. and wages had gone up by 10 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "ERM."] That was before the ERM. Inflation was at 10 per cent. We are not going back to those conditions.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that our changes to pension funds were unnecessary. Let me remind him that his special adviser on tax before the election has written an article in the Financial Times, supporting our reforms. From what he said in that article, I believe that he will support the further reforms in advance corporation tax announced today.
The tragedy is that the former Chancellor was in power for three years and could—and should—have made these reforms in the interests of long-term investment in this country. We will take no lectures from a Chancellor who should have raised interest rates before the election, but did not do so for political reasons.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the costs incurred in earning a living have always been under-estimated, and are very large indeed? He should be warmly praised for what he has done to tackle the problems of child care—an essential part of earning a living. The arrangements he has made for transport are a beginning, and we should look at other areas to see how the tax system can be used to deal with some of the large costs incurred in getting work in the first place.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose work in the Public Accounts Committee on matters such as this and the use of public money has been invaluable.
I think that people will look back on today's statement, and the further announcements which will come tomorrow from the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Social Security, and will say that, at last, a Government have taken on board the concerns of parents about child care costs, provision and facilities in every community of this country. The investment of £300 million over five years to do so is more than any previous Government have contemplated. Side by side with the reform of the tax and benefits system, our child care measures will ensure that child care is affordable, particularly for lone parents who need it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred also to transport costs. Making sure that travel costs to work are low enough for young people joining the new deal will allow them to have more choice of the jobs that they take up.

Mr. Peter Brooke: If our productivity deficit by international standards is now 20 per cent., by the same calculation what was the figure in 1979?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman makes the point about productivity.

Mr. John Bercow: Answer the question.

Mr. Brown: I am answering the question.
As I said in my statement, this has been the case for years. We are 30 per cent. behind some of the best countries in the world, and we must do far better. The right hon. Gentleman will understand the comparison with 1979. In 1979, we were 13th in the world of industrialised countries in terms of national income per head. Now we are 18th, as a result of the failure of the previous Government to bring us up the economic league. We are prepared to take action to do so.

Audrey Wise: As someone who has campaigned loud and long for warmer homes for pensioners, may I warmly welcome the increased payments and the reduction in VAT on insulation material? May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that his figures make it clear that it is not necessary to abolish benefits for lone parents? As the abolition of those benefits will impoverish the poorest children, deepen the poverty trap and provide a disincentive to work, will he look again at this matter, bearing in mind always the fact that not only economic growth but children's growth is damaged by poverty?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting our initiative on cold weather payments. These go to every pensioner household in the country, with more going to those in the greatest poverty. I welcome what she has said about child care, but I remind her that child benefit is rising every year under this Government. The previous Government did not increase child benefit for two of the years after 1988 in which they were in power. Child benefit will rise. We are announcing the figures: there will be an additional £250 million this year.
The priority must be to enable lone parents to obtain work if they want it. That is why we have said that the £200 million that we have spent on the employment programme for lone parents will now be complemented by millions of pounds that will be put into the child-care element, so that lone parents can choose whether or not to work. From April next year, every lone parent who starts receiving benefit will, if he or she wants it, be given advice on work and training, as well as advice on how to collect money through the Child Support Agency.
We have had to make a decision. What is the priority for this Government? The priority must be to give choice to lone parents who never had it under the last Government, because training, child care and employment opportunities were not made available. We are giving them that choice: that is our first priority.

Sir Peter Tapsell: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeatedly appealed— with increasing desperation—for congratulations, may I indeed congratulate him on one of his prophetic economic forecasts? Does he recall that, this time last year, he was assuring us that a new Labour Government would reshape the British economy along the lines of the Asian tiger countries? Is that still his intention?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman may search the libraries if he wishes, but I cannot remember saying that I wanted us to be like Korea or Thailand. What I have said is that we must increase our productivity, and what I did say was that we had fallen from 13th to 18th in the world industrial league.
As for the Asian economies, I said earlier that we must be vigilant. I believe that there are problems in relation to the disclosure of information, as well as the regulation of institutions, that will have to be dealt with on both a regional and international basis; but the most important thing we have learnt from the Asian economies, and from what has happened over the past few weeks, is that the economic fundamentals in every country must be sound.

Mr. Clive Soley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he has changed the terms of the debate, and not least on the way in which he has combined economic efficiency with social justice. May I add my appreciation of the way in which he has involved parenting and child care with the efficiency of the economy? Some of the measures that he has announced will take time to work, but others will work much more quickly. They bear sympathetic consideration, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has been involved in campaigning on the issues that he has mentioned for a long time.
I have always believed that the proper provision of child care is not just a good social policy, but integral to a good economic policy. It is not a side show; it is central to the way in which we conduct our economic affairs. When people look at the figures that will be published tomorrow, they will see that work is to start immediately. It is a five-year programme, providing 30,000 out-of-school child care centres in all communities. That is an ambitious target, but one for which the money is now available.

Mr. John Townend: For a green Budget, this is so short on detail that it could be described as a damp squib. Will the Chancellor reassure the many worried family businesses and family farms that, when he talks of reducing tax avoidance, he is not talking about reducing the inheritance tax reliefs that are so valuable in helping to keep family farms and family businesses in operation?
Will the Chancellor also apologise to pensioners? What he has given them back today is peanuts compared with the £5 billion that will be taken out of their pensions this year, next year and every year.

Mr. Brown: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman hold a poll among what I understand to be the 19,000 pensioners in his constituency. I urge him to ask them whether they support the last Government's policy of putting VAT on fuel, or whether they support the policy that I have announced today. I think that he will find that our policies, which have included cutting value added tax on fuel, abolishing the gas levy and introducing a new winter allowance that is far more generous than the cold weather payments scheme under the previous Government, are widely supported. He will find that his right-wing, free market views, which would do nothing to help pensioners, do not commend themselves to his constituents.

Mr. Tony Benn: The Chancellor made a great point of employment, but is he aware that press reports suggest that the Government are not prepared to help the mining industry, and that up to 50,000 jobs could be lost in mining and associated industries; that

the Governor of the Bank of England, when he came to the House of Commons last week, said that he expected interest rates to have an adverse effect on growth, for internal reasons and because of the higher pound; that the forecasts concerning British membership of the single currency suggest that unemployment in the European Union could rise above 18.5 million if the convergence criteria were imposed; and that instability in the global markets could certainly have an adverse effect?
There is a total absence in the statement of any reference to redistribution, although over the years the gap between rich and poor has widened, and it would appear that the poor are especially targeted in some of the cuts proposed.

Mr. Brown: I do not know what my right hon. Friend means about redistribution, because we redistributed £5 billion from the excess profits of the privatised utilities to job creation in some of our poorest and most deprived communities; if that is not an example of the proper reallocation of resources, from those who did not need them to those who do, I do not know what is. He should congratulate us on it.
The Labour party has always believed in a balanced energy policy, and we have always done what we can for the mining industry.
I am glad that the Campaign group and the Governor of the Bank of England are getting together to discuss issues of mutual interest. We are determined to avoid a return to the instabilities of the past, as when we had interest rates of 15 and 16 per cent. under the previous Government. We hope that by taking early action, with interest rates having had to rise to 7¼ per cent., we can avoid a return to the situation of the past.
My right hon. Friend asked me a similar question about economic and monetary union, which I answered, during the EMU statement. One of our economic tests for EMU is the effect on jobs. I have said that we will apply the tests strenuously, considering the effect on industry, jobs and investment, and we will insist that there is a clear and unambiguous answer in favour before joining a monetary union.
My right hon. Friend should look at what we have proposed, including the help for pensioners, and go back to his constituency and support it.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the Chancellor answer a factual question: other than the reduction in the deficit, what measures in his statement does he think will lead to greater convergence in the criteria in the Maastricht treaty, and what costs will that have for employment or for the economy generally?

Mr. Brown: The meeting of the convergence criteria is in itself right for Britain. I said in the House a few weeks ago that it is a question not only of meeting the nominal criteria on interest rates, inflation and deficit but of having real, sustained and durable convergence. That means that we are seeking improvements in productivity, structural reforms that will increase our economy's ability to grow, and greater investment. Those are all important factors in judging convergence. The measures are right in themselves, and achieving convergence would be right for Britain.

Dr. Lynne Jones: May I note with pleasure that, notwithstanding our commitments on


tax and spend, it has been possible to provide a welcome improvement in benefits to help pensioners with their heating bills, and express the hope that my right hon. Friend will use some of the resources that are apparently available to cut corporation tax to provide the small amount that will be needed to prevent the cuts in lone-parent benefits? Lone parents will get no increase in their child benefit: it has been frozen, so there will be a cut in real terms. It is essentially an in-work benefit, and cutting it is contrary to our welfare-to-work programme.
May I welcome the Chancellors's statement on research and development, and the importance that he gave it, but also draw his attention to concerns in industry and the business community about the parlous state of our public sector research infrastructure? I hope that he will look at the recommendations from Dealing and the CBI that we should consider the way in which the Treasury accounts for such investment.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for those questions. My hon. Friend mentioned corporation tax. Of course we cut it, but people know that the pension fund reforms that we introduced in July meant a gain to the Exchequer, not a loss.
On lone-parent benefits, let me remind my hon. Friend that we have put £200 million into new measures to create job opportunities for lone parents. At the same time, we have put £300 million today into child care, which is the best in-work benefit for lone parents, to enable them to work, in addition to raising child benefit.
We have to make up our mind about our national priorities. We stopped the iniquitous housing benefit change proposed by the former Secretary of State for Social Security. We decided that it was right to use the resources we had to encourage many hundreds of thousands of lone parents to enable them to get more income in work. The average difference between out-of-work benefits and in-work wages is £50 for a lone parent. That is what we want to encourage.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman's proposals on cold weather payments will be much welcomed in the northern parts of the kingdom, certainly in Northern Ireland. They will at least do away with the inequities of the old system.
The right hon. Gentleman has announced a very large spending programme today. As the windfall tax on the privatised utilities and the return of extra money from Europe are one-offs, how will his programmes be financed in future years? It seems unlikely that the growth that he seeks in the economy will be sufficient to pay for them, so he will not be able to achieve a balanced Budget or repayment of capital debt unless he increases taxation. Can we take it for granted that the taxes that he intends to increase are taxes on capital? If so, will the Budget resolutions be framed so as to refer back to today rather than to the date of the Budget?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for those questions. The payment to pensioners to deal with winter fuel bills will come out of the reallocation of money from the European Union payments, which we budgeted for but from which we can use £400 million. Those payments

will be made this year and next year, until the conclusions of the pensions review produce results for pensioners right across the country. We levied the windfall tax this year and next year at £2.6 billion a year. Hon. Members will be pleased to learn that substantial cheques are being paid by the utilities into the Treasury this week.
That money will be used over the five years of this Parliament to create jobs. It is a fund that will be available for giving help to the young, the long-term unemployed, the disabled and lone parents to get back into work and is ring-fenced in that way.

Mr. John McAllion: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of extra help for pensioners this winter, which will warm not only the homes of pensioners but the hearts of all socialists, wherever they can be found in these post-modern times. On the same principle, can he confirm that the Tory spending plans that he accepted were based on the expectation that, in the first two years of this Parliament, there would be a public sector borrowing requirement of some £31.5 billion?
As my right hon. Friend has announced this afternoon a PSBR some £13.5 billion less than that, can he confirm that there is a significant sum in the current spending plans that is no longer required to service that higher level of debt? If so, can he explain why that unexpected windfall cannot be used to stop the planned cuts for lone parents, people with disabilities and students?

Mr. Brown: May I correct my hon. Friend on some points of detail? The spending totals are £266 billion for the control total, £274 billion next year. The full totals are £315 billion and £325 billion. Those are the totals that we are working within. They have not been reduced. As he would welcome, we have reallocated the money that became available from defence and nuclear programmes to the health service. We have reallocated money today from the European Union programme to help pensioners.
On the PSBR, bringing down public borrowing means that, over time, the £25 billion that we pay in interest payments—which we regard as something that should be reduced—will be reduced far more quickly. That means that, instead of one-off gains in public spending that cannot be continued, we will have sustainable public finances that will enable us to afford the regular, continuous increases in resources for health and education that we want.
Our aim is sustainable finances. We are not going to do what previous Labour Governments did: spend in the first two years, and then have to retrench in the last three. We will have sustainable public finances that allow us to improve health and education over time.

Sir Michael Spicer: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman bring himself to say thank you to his predecessors for the extraordinarily strong economy that they left behind? What is his answer to the question put to him earlier about the fact that, according to the Bank of England, under his regime the economy is set to run downhill?

Mr. Brown: I will not thank the Opposition for what they left behind. They left behind a £23 billion borrowing requirement; they doubled national debt to £360 billion;


interest rate payments were £25 billion; and inflation was starting to rise again. We were going back to the old British disease. It remained for us to take action to create a new monetary and fiscal framework, which the Opposition have yet to tell us whether they support.

Gillian Merron: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which is all about long-term planning to improve people's lives, especially for those who need it most. I particularly welcome the announcement on out-of-school clubs, which, like the West End Kids club in my constituency, will offer a safe and constructive environment in which children can learn and be cared for. Does he agree that, if it is good for children, it is good for parents and for the economy?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The generosity of her welcome contrasts with the way in which Opposition Members have failed even to welcome our measures for pensioners. On child care centres, we propose to have nearly 30,000 out-of-school centres, built and available as a result of the decisions taken today; £300 million is available, and potentially nearly 1 million children will benefit.
I am pleased that the model in my hon. Friend's constituency is one, among others, that will be looked at as we expand child care throughout the country. We must learn from the successful partnerships that are making child care possible in some communities, and we must provide a nationwide service for all mothers.

Mr. John Swinney: In welcoming the consultation exercise on which the Chancellor has embarked, I hope that he is listening to points of view that are being expressed.
What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to exporters and manufacturers who are greatly troubled by the strength of the pound and higher interest rates, and the dangers that they cause to their business prospects? Does he recognise that, as public finances have improved, there is room for additional public expenditure to deal with the fact that NHS waiting lists are not improving and that many people on low incomes will have to suffer even more under this Government?
The announcement on payments to pensioners was welcome—unlike the Conservatives, I am happy to welcome it. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that announcement was caused by the utter arrogance displayed by the Department of Social Security in refusing to apply the wind chill factor in cold climate payments?

Mr. Brown: We have taken the right measures to help pensioners—far better measures than were ever proposed under the previous Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security inherited a review in progress that would have made little difference. Our changes in payments mean that every pensioner household benefits: the poorest pensioner households get £50 and, taken with all the other changes—for example, in VAT on fuel—the typical pensioner household could be up to £100 better off next year.
As for the hon. Gentleman's other questions about the exchange rate, I said in my statement that I recognise the concerns of exporters, but I would put it to him that

what they are most afraid of is a return to the stop-go instability of the past. We will not take measures that prejudice the economy as a whole and return us to the boom-bust conditions of the past. If the hon. Gentleman examines the forecasts, he will see that exports are rising in volume by 7 per cent. this year, and are expected to continue to rise by 5 per cent. next year.
As for public spending, if the situation is healthier, that is because of the action that we have taken. The hon. Gentleman should also congratulate us on reallocating resources to the health service, with £300 million this year and £1.2 billion next year; and to education, with £1 billion next year and the £1.2 billion school capital investment programme from which many constituencies will benefit. It is about time the Opposition parties, who were asking for these things—in the case of the Liberal Democrats, asking for far less—congratulated us on what we did.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on every detail of his pre-Budget statement, but may I question him more widely about interest rates? As we move towards joining the single currency, we need convergence on interest rates. How will my right hon. Friend produce the economic climate that will allow interest rates in Britain to fall from their current 7.25 per cent. to the 3.3 per cent. of Germany and the rest of Europe?

Mr. Brown: By getting stable and sustainable growth and tackling inflation, we will get interest rates down. Our interest rates will come down as we take the tough action that is necessary. My hon. Friend asks about monetary union, but we have yet to hear an answer to the question put to the Conservatives: do they support the principle of monetary union—yes or no?

Mrs. Theresa May: Is the Chancellor aware of the real fear engendered among people with disabilities and disability groups that the Government will cut disability benefits through means testing, taxing benefits or a reduction in lifetime rights? Will he answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, allay the fears of people with disabilities, clarify the Government's position, and state categorically that the Government will not in any way reduce disability benefits?

Mr. Brown: Our proposal is for a comprehensive spending review that is fair—that is the underlying principle. Today, I explained how we were spending £200 million on helping men and women who are disabled and want to work, to do so. Criticism of the Government comes ill from an Opposition party that, when in government, blocked the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and then cut invalidity benefit for thousands of people.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the end of last year during the coldest weather, a group of Labour Members of Parliament, including me, went to 10 Downing street and pleaded for help for poorest pensioners, and were refused? I therefore welcome the announcement today, which will certainly help many pensioners. Despite the justifiable points he


has just made about disability and the sheer hypocrisy of the Tory party, is he aware of the concern felt by Labour Members—which is genuine, unlike that expressed by Tory Members—about any taxing or means-testing of disability benefit?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the comments made over the weekend by Lord Ashley and Lord Morris of Manchester—two Members of Parliament who fought bravely and honourably in the House against strong Tory opposition on behalf of the disabled? Those two men know what they are talking about, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will note their words.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first comments about cold weather payments. I assure him that, if he turns up at No. 11, or indeed No. 10, Downing street, he will be invited in, rather than kept outside as he was under the previous Government.
As for the comments of Lord Ashley and Lord Morris, I and many people throughout the country have great respect for their work on behalf of the disabled. Our comprehensive spending review is designed on the principle of being fair, and we will be fair to the disabled.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Chancellor referred to the strength of the pound and the problems that creates. He may be aware that that is causing particular problems to agriculture by inhibiting exports, bringing in imports far too easily, and depressing the level of support payments. That, combined with the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, is creating a catastrophic situation in areas such as my own in rural Wales, where livestock farming takes place. He will be aware that the European Union has a mechanism for dealing with such situations by providing compensation and that those payments have been made available by all eligible EU countries. May I plead with the Chancellor to access those funds in order to reduce the pressure on farming?

Mr. Brown: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any promises, but I shall put his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will the Chancellor give some forecast about the likely risk of slipping, not only down to 1.5 per cent. GDP growth in our third year, but into recession as the high pound continues to erode our export potential? Given the now inevitable devaluation of the yen, coming on top of the devaluation of south-east Asian currencies, and the fact that the deutschmark has led all the European currencies down about 15 per cent., will we not face a major balance of payments crisis unless we do something to bring down the value of the pound, which means tackling interest rates?

Mr. Brown: I have to tell my hon. Friend that, if we had failed to take action in May and left inflation to rise without taking action on interest rates, that would have caused a recession of the sort he describes. He should therefore support our action in respect of the Bank of England and our subsequent decisions. If he thinks the matter through, he will understand that the very conditions

he is speaking in favour of were those that led to the problems the Conservative Government got into in the 1980s.

Mr. Howard Flight: The Chancellor will, I am sure, agree that the achievement of higher productivity will require not only higher investment but higher savings. The Conservative Government introduced personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts to increase savings. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether those schemes will be grandfathered in 1999—that is, the amount invested in them will remain under that contract— or whether his statement means that they will be terminated? Seven million people will be affected by the decision.

Mr. Brown: My aim is to increase the number of people with savings. As I said, half the population of this country have hardly any savings at all, and that will influence the proposals we introduce next week on the individual savings account. I look forward to discussing with the hon. Gentleman those detailed proposals, which will be published in a consultation document next Tuesday.

Caroline Flint: I welcome today's statement from my right hon. Friend. As the former chair of Working for Childcare, and on behalf of my constituents, many of whom are lone parents, I welcome the proposals on child care and reform of the tax and benefits systems and other measures to help low-income families into work rather than remaining on benefits for the rest of their life. I recently visited a centre in Doncaster for young mothers under 16 that enables them to continue their studies by providing support in child care and transport. What young parents need post-16 is policies of the future, not a re-hash of the policies of the past.
I remind my right hon. Friend that it was the Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that it was the Conservative Government who introduced a tax on workplace nurseries that put back the development of employer-led child care for 10 years? That was their only contribution to child care while they were in power.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right, and the jeers from Conservative Members show that they are not interested in child care issues. As she rightly said, there are three elements in our proposals: first, we want to help people to be able to afford child care; secondly, we want to create child care places; and, thirdly, we want to train young people to be child carers. That is why this is the first national strategy for child care, and I hope that, increasingly, hon. Members on both sides of the House will support it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Chancellor's statement contained some potentially far-reaching proposals for the integration of the tax and benefits systems. Will he confirm that it is in his mind to introduce any such changes in four months' time, in his Budget? Will he tell us how the Government will carry forward the process of consultation on that potential reform?
A comprehensive integration of tax and benefits is an extremely complicated thing to do. The Chancellor will know that one of the reasons why the interrelationship between the two systems is so often perverse is that past Governments have gone for short-term fixes, with dire long-term consequences.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a renowned expert in these matters, and the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee. The report and the comments made yesterday about the maze of benefits and the chaos in the tax and benefit system up until now mean that there is a strong case for reform. I can confirm that we are looking at these things.
I told the Committee that we would be prepared to give evidence to it. I hope that the membership of the Committee will join us in examining these issues. We need to find a solution to the poverty and unemployment traps that prevent thousands from benefiting from work. We need to provide a solution that gives as many people as possible who are currently on low pay proper rewards for work.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that one of our priorities has been to defuse the inflationary time bomb that we inherited from the Conservative Government—and, indeed, the work of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer? What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the impact on the British economy if we had not raised interest rates since May?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I see that the former Chancellor has gone from the Chamber. I should remind him that, for six months, he was advised that interest rates had to go up. For six months before the general election, he refused to do so.
When I arrived at the Treasury, it was clear that inflation was going far beyond its target range. It was for those reasons that we took immediate action. We raised

interest rates immediately, and made the Bank of England independent. There have had to be further rises in interest rates. The reason for those rises is that action that should have been taken was not taken by the previous Government.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Many will welcome the further expansion in child care facilities, but can the Chancellor confirm that what he has really done is raid the funds that the sports, arts, heritage and charities bodies were confidently expecting? Does his announcement not mark the end of the additionality and arm's-length principles? Should we now refer to the national lottery as the Chancellor's back pocket for pet causes?

Mr. Brown: I disagree entirely with what the right hon. Lady says about the national lottery. As she perfectly well knows, the mid-week lottery increased the amount of money that the lottery was able to provide for good causes by about £1 billion. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady should listen, because we put the proposal to the electorate and they supported it at the general election. We said that we would create a new opportunities fund to provide help for fitness centres, out-of-school centres and homework centres that would not otherwise have been provided. That is why it is possible to say that the money is being put to good use.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We must now move on. There will be other opportunities to pursue these matters.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Mark Oaten Esq., for Winchester

Welsh Assembly

Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you advise the House whether the Secretary of State for Wales has sought permission to make a statement to the House, following an announcement last night that the new assembly building will now not be sited in City hall? There is also speculation that it will not be sited in Cardiff at all.
One of the main arguments during the referendum debate was that the assembly should be kept within budget. We stated that it would cost £100 million over four years. We were told that that was a gross over-estimate, and that it would cost less than that figure. If the assembly has to move into either temporary accommodation or alternative new-build accommodation, the final cost of the assembly in Wales could be far more than £100 million over four years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): No such request has been made. I can say only that those on the Treasury Bench will perhaps have noted the hon. Member's remarks.

Reform of Quarantine Regulations

Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the importation of pet animals from the European Union and rabies-free countries without quarantine upon proof of vaccinations, blood tests and permanent identification by microchip; to improve standards in quarantine kennels; and for connected purposes.
The word "rabies" undoubtedly brings terror into people's minds. It is an awful disease. Each year, between £720,000 and £760,000 is spent on actively encouraging the existing system. It seemed rather bizarre, then, that when I recently visited a number of quarantine kennels I observed owners in the cages with their animals kissing and cuddling them. That seemed to me to defeat the object of quarantine.
Rabies was eradicated from the United Kingdom in 1922 and is fast disappearing from the rest of the European Union. It is often claimed that the controls that have been used for the past 100 years have served us well. However, a critical examination of the facts reveals that the current arrangements for pet quarantine, as stipulated in the Rabies (Control) Order 1974, are outdated, unnecessary and in need of urgent reform.
In the past 25 years, 1.7 million mammals, including 200,000 cats and dogs, have entered the United Kingdom. In 1983 and 1990, two cases of suspected rabies were reported in kennels in the United Kingdom, but in both cases the dogs had been deliberately infected with a live vaccine. Neither had revealed any clinical symptoms. Those facts are in the public domain. The only cases of rabies in Britain in the past 18 years have been carried here by humans.
Those who defend the present system need to answer the following question. If no cases of rabies have been detected in quarantine in the past 25 years, why are we maintaining the present system? They will no doubt argue that there is no sufficient scientific basis for reforming the existing system. Besides, they will point to the fact that the current controls have operated successfully. I believe that those points are contentious, because developments in science in recent years have presented an overwhelming case for change.
The World Health Organisation has confirmed that modern inactivated vaccines are both safe and effective for cats and dogs. According to last year's report by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 72 per cent. of the population believe that the vaccination system would be an acceptable alternative to quarantine. Vaccinations have a duration of one year and need to be renewed annually. Microchips, I am delighted to say, can now be implanted into a cat or dog at an early age. Microchips are now recognised according to world standards.
No argument for change can be considered without reflecting on the risk assessment. Such an assessment has not been undertaken in Britain, although I welcome the decision of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, announced this autumn, to establish a panel of experts headed by Professor Ian Kennedy, to look into the matter. I understand that he is the only person to have been appointed to the panel so far. We should examine carefully the assessment made by the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture. It is particularly pertinent. It tells


us that quarantine based on a six-month period of isolation has an 11 per cent. failure rate, whereas a method based on vaccination has only a 6 per cent. failure rate.
In the past 25 years, 170,000 families have put their pets through quarantine. A total of 2,500 pets have died during that period, which represents roughly 10 animals a month, and in the past five years, 735 cats and dogs have died in quarantine. All those animals are loved by their owners and are greatly missed.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that quarantine can cause some animals, especially dogs, to stop eating and to stop drinking. Many die when they come out, having picked up something during the isolation period. Judging by the standard of some kennels, that is hardly surprising, because there is no statutory code covering standards in kennels. There is a voluntary code, under which the Ministry makes quarterly visits and approves kennels' licences, but the emphasis on security is uppermost— certainly not welfare.
I am advised by all the interested parties that conditions in kennels vary considerably. The cost of putting an animal into quarantine varies from £1,500 to £3,000. I believe that my Bill would remedy some of those matters, especially the very high charges.
Other countries have successful rabies-free policies. Forty-eight countries are rabies-free. We should also reflect on the successful change that Sweden made in its quarantine laws three years ago.
On top of all the unnecessary cruelty of the current system, not to mention the inconvenience to pet owners, there is a complete lack of consistency because it applies only to pets, not to animals that have been brought to the United Kingdom for sale. They require only the necessary licences and vaccination certificates, just like pet passports. There are no quarantine requirements for all the cattle moving in and out of this country, which makes no sense as the animals are all warm-blooded and capable of carrying rabies. In effect, the existing system allows traded animals to enter the country and move around freely without being subject to quarantine requirements.
Responsible pet owners ensure that their pets are vaccinated against rabies, but they are still forced to put their pets into quarantine. The regulations affect tens of thousands of British people who work abroad, including diplomats, those in the armed forces, holidaymakers and the blind.
I am obliged to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the pet passport organisation, the Kennel Club and many other organisations for their advice on these matters, and I suppose that I am also inspired by my black labrador puppy, Michael. Eighty-six per cent. of the population would like a change.
I am delighted to see the Home Secretary in his place. I am not challenging the Government's intentions in this matter but, with the best will in the world, it will be a very long time before effective legislation is in place so, as we approach Christmas, I appeal to the Government to reflect on what I have said, and on the views of the former Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Chris Patten, and of Lord Waddington. Those former colleagues seem to have changed their minds on the matter, and I was especially moved by the noble Lord, who told the other place that his dog died two days after it was released from quarantine.
I am not necessarily looking for charity in this matter, but I am looking for charity from the Government before Christmas, and I believe that this limited measure would give some relief.
I intend, not to destroy Britain's reputation as a rabies-free country, but to prevent the cruelty, suffering and inconvenience that pets and their loving families experience when they enter the United Kingdom. Pet passports should be introduced into this country. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Mr. Alan Clark, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Sir Teddy Taylor and Miss Ann Widdecombe.

REFORM OF QUARANTINE REGULATIONS

Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to allow the importation of pet animals from the European Union and rabies-free countries without quarantine upon proof of vaccinations, blood tests and permanent identification by microchip; to improve standards in quarantine kennels; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 December, and to be printed [Bill 87].

Orders of the Day — European Parliamentary Elections Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Government were elected in May with firm commitments to improve the democratic process in this country. As the House knows, our programme of constitutional reform is already well advanced. It gives me great pleasure to add another item to the list of manifesto commitments that are being fulfilled.
In the manifesto, we promised to introduce a proportional voting system for elections to the European Parliament; the Bill does just that. It will enable the 1999 and subsequent elections to the Parliament to be conducted using a proportionally based regional list system.
The Bill has had a long genesis. Twenty years ago yesterday, a Bill to provide direct elections to the European Parliament was introduced into the House following a White Paper in April 1977. The Bill initially provided for a regional list system, but in December 1977, the House voted by about 100 votes to reject that system and instead to put in its place one based on first past the post. It is that system which has remained in place ever since.
The first direct elections to the European Parliament took place in June 1979. Since then, for almost all of the past 20 years, the European Union has been attempting to ensure that elections to the European Parliament in each of the member states are based on common principles. The system that we are proposing in the Bill is in conformity with those principles.
A regional list system of elections to the European Parliament has been Labour party policy for a number of years. In 1993, Professor Raymond Plant, as he then was, who is now a distinguished Member of another place, produced a report for another place—I am sorry, for the Labour party—

Sir Brian Mawhinney: It is another place.

Mr. Straw: Well, these days it is very easy to get a place.
Professor Plant produced a report recommending a regional list system for those elections. That policy was endorsed by the Labour party conference the same year, confirmed by the Joint Consultative Committee on Constitutional Reform in February 1997 and included in our formal election manifesto.
Before discussing the Bill, let me say something about electoral reform generally. I believe that it is reasonably well known that I do not have a reputation as an evangelist for proportional representation for the Westminster Parliament. However, I have never been opposed to proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament nor, in certain circumstances, for local elections.
It is of the utmost importance that any voting system is appropriate for the nature and functions of the body that is being elected. My arguments against proportional representation for the Westminster Parliament have been based on the mathematical and political difficulty of securing an identity between votes cast, seats gained and power secured. It is possible to devise a voting system where the seats won are proportional to the votes cast— but there follows a serious conundrum. The greater the proportionality of votes to seats, the less may be the proportionality of votes to power.
PR systems typically give disproportionate power to the smaller minority parties, while first-past-the-post and similar systems with single-member constituencies give power to the largest plurality and so help secure a system where the proportionality, not between votes and seats, but between votes and power, may be the greater.
However, those characteristics of proportional representation and the consequences that may go with it— unstable Governments—can apply only where a Government are being elected. There are fundamental differences between the European Parliament and our United Kingdom Parliament. The European Parliament is a representative body; it is not a Parliament from which a Government are drawn.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As it is clear to those of us who have served in the European Parliament that many other European countries envy the connection between elected Members and their constituencies and understand that it has one enormous advantage over a system under which the parties control the list, will my right hon. Friend give us the real justification for the system that he is proposing this afternoon?

Mr. Straw: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says in terms of the Westminster Parliament. She has outlined one of the great strengths of our system of representation, based on single-Member constituencies. It is well worth remembering that the root of the word "Commons" is the French word "commune", meaning a community. I believe—and I am sure that my view is shared by anybody who has been a Minister or a shadow Minister— that one of the enormous strengths of our system is that, however high and mighty we think we may be, the fact that we have to go back to our constituency on a Friday evening, sit in a community centre and receive representations from our constituents, gives us a direct link to our constituents in a way that it is impossible to replicate under a system of multi-member proportional representation.
However, there is a world of difference between a constituency that one can comprehend in terms of its size—such as Crewe, Blackburn and similar places or parts of cities, which broadly accord with the majority of communities—and the vast constituencies that form the basis of representation in the European Parliament, where the direct connection between the Member and his constituents is very much more tenuous.

Sir Peter Tapsell: In the United States, Congressmen often represent districts with substantially larger electorates than those proposed by the right hon. Gentleman for the European Parliament. There is a direct relationship between those big electorates and


their representatives. Anyone who knows the United States well will know that people continually say, "My Congressman said this," and, "I wrote to my Congressman about that." Under the proposals, that close relationship would be lost.

Mr. Straw: What the hon. Gentleman says is accurate, but Members of Congress in the United States have huge support—typically they have 40 or 50 staff to enable them to achieve the connection. They also have strong media backing and are constantly campaigning as the elections take place every two years.
Moreover, there is a critical difference that strengthens the connection between a constituency and a Member of Parliament or a Member of Congress. In both cases, we are talking about people who act to form a Government— in this country, they act directly to form a Government and in the United States, they act to support and form part of a Government—and to ensure that the Government are provided with revenue. In the European Parliament, those considerations do not apply. The European Parliament does not form the basis of a Government, but is simply a representative body.
Had the hon. Gentleman been correct in his assertion, we would have seen over the past 20 years a close connection between the European Parliament's constituencies and its Members. However, generally speaking, that is not the case.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Even granted the truth in what the Home Secretary is saying, it would have been possible for the Labour Government to come forward with proposals that provided for proportional representation, but maintained a constituency base for the electorate. The Home Secretary has not said why he has chosen the one PR system that ensures that there is no constituency basis.

Mr. Straw: I shall come to that point—I have only just started my speech. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is dissatisfied with the explanation that I shall give later, I shall happily give way to him again.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I merely wanted to deal with a myth. The Home Secretary is making a perfectly reasonable case for the different nature of the European Parliament, but lest he should imagine that it is impossible to have a constituency link in a PR system, may I suggest that he visits the Irish Republic, where Members elected under the single transferable vote system are well aware of their link to constituencies and most certainly spend their Friday nights addressing constituency problems?

Mr. Straw: I have studied voting systems for more than 30 years and I have kept a close eye on the politics of the Irish Republic, where the Irish have a system to which they are attached. I have always found it difficult to understand a system whereby the voters' will does not always appear to be translated into either a change of Government or the sustaining of a Government. In the Irish Republic, Governments have changed every three years with extraordinary regularity.
We are dealing not with the election of a Parliament which then sustains a Government, but with the election of a representative body in Europe. The role of a Member

of the European Parliament is different from that of a Member of Parliament, yet they are both directly elected by the same method.
The United Kingdom returns only 87 Members to the European Parliament and, quite apart from the disconnection between the constituencies and the Members, the huge constituencies that we currently have mean that disproportionate results are greatly magnified. As a result, even a small swing in the vote can lead to a substantial difference in the number of seats, as the fluctuating composition of the UK delegation to the European Parliament over the past 20 years has demonstrated.
Members of the House who have studied such matters with care may be aware that it is easy to construct an index of proportionality of seats gained to votes cast. I should be happy to explain the method of calculation to hon. Members who are not familiar with it, either now or later. I hope that colleagues will take my word for the fact that Westminster elections and the first-past-the-post system typically score between 80 and 89 per cent. in terms of proportionality—quite a high score, bearing in mind the criticisms that are sometimes made of the first-past-the-post system in Westminster.
In the last European elections, because of the size of the constituencies, the proportionality index score was only 70 per cent. For that reason, we believe that a simple regional list system of PR, for which the Bill provides, is the most appropriate one for electing Members of the European Parliament.

Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister stated that he has kept a close eye on electoral reform over the past 30 years. I have kept a close eye on the document that he produced for the national executive of the Labour party a number of years ago. I shall not embarrass him by quoting from the document, but will he clarify two points? Is he in favour of proportional representation for election to the House of Commons? Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), is my right hon. Friend now accepting that under a regional list system, Members of the European Parliament will not be accountable to their electorate?

Mr. Straw: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was present for my opening remarks, when I think that I made it tolerably clear that I am not enthusiastic about proportional representation for Westminster elections. My hon. Friend would not embarrass me if he were to quote from the document that I produced some years ago, as my views on the subject have not changed. I have always accepted that electoral systems must be appropriate for the particular political institution to which they apply. We must consider the nature of the relationships that we are trying to establish and, for that reason, I am highly sceptical of any systems that move away from single-Member constituencies for the House of Commons. However, as I am seeking to explain, different considerations must be borne in mind in relation to the European Parliament.

Mr. William Cash: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain why the Amsterdam treaty, which amends the European Union


treaty and which we shall be debating in a couple of days' time in Committee, contains a provision stating:
The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States"—
which pretty well follows the words of the arrangements entered into at Maastricht, but also adds
or in accordance with principles common to all Member States."?
In other words, the treaty that the Government— and, presumably, the right hon. Gentleman himself— negotiated contains arrangements that would insist on those common principles, which are essentially proper democratic principles. Why, therefore, in the light of the Amsterdam treaty, have the Government gone down a route that is less democratic than the arrangements that could have been provided for?

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that for a moment. The arrangements that we are putting in place—whether or not the hon. Gentleman agrees with them—are extremely similar, and in some cases identical, to those that are in place in the majority of other European countries.

Dr. Tony Wright: May I try to make a helpful suggestion to my right hon. Friend? Many of us will be persuaded by his argument that, with regard to electoral systems, it is horses for courses, but many of us will not be persuaded by the argument that closed party lists on a regional basis are the right horse for this course.
When the proposal first came before the House exactly 20 years ago, in 1977, at a time when there was an arrangement between the Labour party and a previous incarnation of the Liberal Democrat party, the House was offered a free vote on the kind of system with which it would feel most happy. At a time when we are offering a referendum to choose an electoral system, and when there is genuine disagreement about the kind of system that we want for the European elections, I suggest that it would be appropriate to give the House a choice of proportional systems. That would allow us to meet our obligations, and to select a system with which the House would feel comfortable.

Mr. Straw: Today we are implementing a manifesto commitment on which all Labour Members stood. I cannot speak for the Opposition—no doubt they are as divided on this as they are on other issues—but it is fair enough for us to stick to a whipped vote.
The vote in December 1977 was a hybrid. It was a whipped vote for the payroll vote, except that two members of the payroll were allowed a special dispensation to vote against the payroll, and other Members were able to enjoy a free vote. It is interesting to note that there are 60 Members still in the House from the more than 500 who voted in December 1977 on that matter. Two members of the current shadow Cabinet voted in favour of the proposition for a regional list system at that time. It will be interesting to see what they do this evening.
Let me deal with a point that had been raised and was implicit in the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). I refer to the referendum on voting systems for Westminster.
I have long believed, as has the Labour party, that it is time to bring to a conclusion the arguments over which electoral system should apply to Westminster elections. The Government do not claim a monopoly of wisdom in that regard. We hope very shortly to be in a position to honour our manifesto commitment to establish an independent commission to consider what would be the best electoral system to adopt, if we are to move away from first past the post. After that, we intend to let the people decide in an entirely free vote on the system that should apply.
Let me deal with what the Bill does. It provides for elections to the European Parliament to be conducted using a proportionally based regional list system. The counting of the votes will be based on the "highest average" formula using the d'Hondt divisor. I intend to say a little more about divisors in a moment.

Mr. Christopher Gill: As I came into the Chamber this evening, I received a ministerial reply from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who stated:
We take seriously our responsibilities for Gibraltar within the EU.
I am sure that the Home Secretary recognises that there are 30,000 people in Gibraltar who, if my information is correct, are the only people in the entire European Union who do not have a vote in European elections. Given the present proposition that we should change to a regional system, it would seem simple to include Gibraltar in one of the new regions. I invite the Home Secretary to give the House an assurance that Gibraltarians will be given an opportunity to vote in the European Parliament elections in 1999.

Mr. Straw: That is an enticing prospect. I await further advice, as Gibraltar is not my responsibility. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are my responsibility, and I believe that Gibraltar is in a similar, but not the same, position. Gibraltar is a dependency under the Crown, but it is not part of the United Kingdom. It is the United Kingdom that is part of the European Union, not the dependencies. People who live on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man do not have representation in the EU, even though they are clearly affected by decisions made by it.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will the Home Secretary return to the point made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)? It was not part of the Labour party's manifesto to propose a closed list system. That is perhaps the most obnoxious feature of the proposed arrangement. Will the right hon. Gentleman address that matter?

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, I shall come to that and hope to provide some comfort, both to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase.
A list system is used to elect Members of the European Parliament in every other member state of the EU, apart from the Republic of Ireland. The particular simple list electoral system that the Bill would introduce is the same type of system as is used in France, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain, so nearly two thirds of EU citizens


already elect their MEPs in this way, and the figure would rise to over 70 per cent. if Britain also adopted that approach.
Under the Bill, the United Kingdom will be divided into regions. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will each constitute a single region. They will return eight, five and three MEPs respectively, as they do at present. Northern Ireland already elects its three MEPs using a proportional system—the single transferable vote. It works well there and appears to enjoy wide support, so we do not propose to change it.
England will continue to return 71 MEPs. It will be divided into nine regions. The regions, which are set out in schedule 2 to the Bill, will be the regions that are currently used by the Government offices for the regions. We have chosen those regions because they are well established and understood by the people who live in them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no good Opposition Members mocking the regions or their boundaries. In an effort to be ecumenical, I have chosen those regions because they were established by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I hoped that there would be no suggestion of any fiddling of the boundaries, which were established by the previous Government, following clear geographical lines, and have been widely accepted.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If, in a particular area such as Cumbria, people feel strongly that the MEP should be part of a northern regional arrangement, will there be some flexibility in the decisions that my right hon. Friend takes?

Mr. Straw: I regret to say that if the Bill is passed unamended—it will be open to my hon. Friend to move amendments to the schedule laying out the regions—that will not be the case. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but if there are standard regions, it is important, in order to maintain people's confidence in the system, that we should adopt them without trying to change them.
Had I sought to move Cumbria into the North East— although I understand the arguments for that—I would have ended up in dispute with some but not all of the local authorities in Cumbria, and I would also have been open to accusations that we were doing that for the wrong reasons. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the reasoning behind the schedule.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I re-emphasise a point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? Is the Home Secretary aware that under the proposals that he is presenting to the House, the Peak national park will fall into four regions—four counties? There is therefore a case for him not to follow dogmatically the areas corresponding to the regional offices. It is nonsense that the area of the Peak national park should fall into the East Midlands, the North West, the West Midlands, and Yorkshire and The Humber, and thus have no voice at all.

Mr. Straw: I am sure that they will write a good line about the hon. Gentleman in his local paper—and I am sure that he needs it. I have been in this place longer than him, and I never heard him speak, while a Minister, against the boundaries devised by his predecessors.
The only exception that we propose is Merseyside, which we shall combine with the North West region for electoral purposes. That is simply a recognition of the fact that Merseyside alone would be too small to return enough MEPs to make the system work effectively. The number of MEPs for each region depends on the number of registered electors in that region. As nearly as possible, the ratio of electors to MEPs will be the same in each region. The Bill contains provisions for the numbers to be adjusted to take account of population shifts, as schedule 1(4) makes clear. The initial number of MEPs for each region is set out in the table in schedule 1.
Under the Bill, parties will be able to put forward a list of candidates containing up to as many names as there are seats to be filled in that region. In addition, any independent candidates who wish to stand may do so— including lots of independent Conservatives if the Opposition have arrived at that position by then. Under the proposal on the face of the Bill, voters will vote either for a party's list or for an independent candidate. They will not be able to vote for individual candidates on a party list. As now, the process will be simply to mark a single cross on the ballot paper.

Mr. Gill: How will the electorate get rid of an MEP whom the people dislike and who they believe is failing them under the new system?

Mr. Straw: They will do that in the same way as they get rid of any politician: by not voting for him. I shall deal with the gravamen of the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment.
Under the system, the number of votes cast for each party and each independent is counted and the seats allocated. The seat allocation process, which is set out in clause 1, is as follows. The first seat in a region goes to the independent candidate or the party with the highest vote. If the seat is allocated to a party, it goes to the first candidate on that party's list. The remaining seats are allocated, one by one, in the same way except that, at each stage, the parties' original totals are divided by the number of seats that each party has won, plus the number one. That gives me an opportunity to say more about another scintillating subject.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I ask him to hold back until I have dealt with d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague. I shall then give way to him immediately.
I know that this question has gripped many people: they talk of little else at open-air meetings in Blackburn. The divisor is the set of numbers by which party votes are progressively divided to take account of the number of seats that a party has already won. The divisor used in the Bill is known in Europe as the d'Hondt divisor. It was devised at the end of the last century by Victor d'Hondt, a Belgian. I hope that hon. Members will take careful note of Monsieur Victor d'Hondt, as it is not often that a Minister of the Crown offers them a chance to improve their prowess at that popular Christmas parlour game, "Name 10 famous Belgians". I have contributed greatly to Christmas disputes and to the sum of human knowledge in that area by naming at least one famous Belgian.
Lest anyone think that the d'Hondt divisor is a highly complex mathematical calculation, I shall divulge the first few numbers in the series: one, two, three, four and five. In other words, a party's total vote is always divided by the number of seats that it has already been allocated, plus one. There has been some suggestion that the Bill should use a different divisor—specifically, the Sainte-Lague divisor. The numbers in the Sainte-Lague—

Mr. Hogg: Who is he?

Mr. Straw: He is not Belgian. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be interested to know that divisors are used for council elections in Cambridge, Massachusetts. However, the d'Hondt system is called the Jeffersonian method and the Sainte-Lague system is called the Webster method.
I must give the House more information about this interesting subject. The numbers in the Sainte-Lague divisor are not one, two, three, four and five—as under the d'Hondt system—but one, three, five, seven and nine. As I am sure hon. Members will have worked out already, the effect is that, when allocating seats, a party's total is always divided by twice the number of seats that the party has won, plus one.
To complicate matters, there also exists a modified version of Sainte-Lague—which is generally used in Scandinavia—in which the initial number one, the divisor, is replaced by 1.4. I know that hon. Members will ask— even I did—why 1.4 is used. Those hon. Members who have studied art history will know that 1.4—which is approximately the square root of two—is the golden number that was much admired by Leonardo da Vinci, and is embedded deep in European architectural history.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It sounds logical.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend, for whom I have always had high regard, expresses some dissent about the use of the modified Sainte-Lague system. I am pleased to say that she and I are at one in rejecting it. We shall ensure that it is not used in Britain. There is a serious point to this—as there often is. Different divisors can produce different results, and there may be arguments as to which is the most truly proportional.

Mr. Llew Smith: rose—

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Straw: I promised to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Hogg: I am most grateful. I think that hon. Members have enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman's presentation of the various formulae, but will he now return to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill): how will the electorate in a particular region get rid of a candidate whom the people do not like? In reality, the people will simply choose one or other party and the party will appoint the MEP.

Mr. Straw: I shall come to the issue of voter preference later. I assure the right hon. and learned

Gentleman that there is no difference in principle. He was chosen to stand as the candidate for his constituency, not by the voters but by his constituency association.

Mr. Hogg: They can vote against me.

Mr. Straw: Yes, they can—indeed, we tried to ensure that they did so, and it is one of the few constituencies where we failed in that endeavour. The electors of Sleaford and North Hykeham could vote for candidates from another party, and exactly the same situation arises in principle under any of the other systems.

Mr. Gill: rose—

Mr. Smith: rose—

Mr. Straw: I must continue but, if time allows, I shall accept more interventions—and give way to my hon. Friend—on the fascinating issues of divisors and the kind of list system that we should introduce.
Those who argue for Sainte-Lague say that it favours smaller parties and that d'Hondt discriminates in favour of larger parties. However, we do not believe that that is so, and we have calculated the likely effect of using all three divisors. The differences that they produce are minimal, and we have decided to use the d'Hondt divisor for four reasons. First, we believe that it will produce a fair result. Secondly, Sainte-Lague does not necessarily produce more proportional results. I have already introduced the proportionality index to the House—I noticed how hon. Members listened with bated breath. By calculating the index score for six regions using the 1994 European election vote in the United Kingdom, we found that, on average, d'Hondt scored higher than Sainte-Lague.
Thirdly, as I hope my exposition has demonstrated, d'Hondt is simpler and more logical—I do not claim that d'Hondt is simple or logical, but it is simpler and more logical than the other two systems. Fourthly, d'Hondt is the most commonly used divisor in Europe—of the nine other EU member states that elect their MEPs using the highest average list system, eight use the d'Hondt divisor. Only one—Sweden—uses Sainte-Lague, and it uses the modified form with the golden number 1.4 as the initial divisor.

Mr. Beith: The Secretary of State will recognise, I hope, that the effects of which divisor is used are most marked where the seats have only a small number of MEPs. If we take the example of Wales and the 1997 general election results—the most recent that we have— using the d'Hondt system, no party other than Labour and the Conservatives would have won seats in Wales, and Labour would have won 80 per cent. of the seats on 54 per cent. of the votes. That is an extreme case within the system, but it would happen, given the d'Hondt divisor and a seat with only five MEPs.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman and I have discussed that at some length outside the House. We have considered carefully the proportionality index that would apply in Wales in respect of d'Hondt, Sainte-Lague modified and Sainte-Lague pure. I am happy to tell him that, in the 1994 elections, d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague


modified would have produced a proportionality index for Wales of 88.5 per cent.—the same index—and Sainte-Lague an index of 90 per cent., but overall, there is no question about it: d'Hondt produces a marginally better proportionality relationship between seats and votes than Sainte-Lague.
Let me deal with the issue that has perhaps been more controversial: the nature of the list system.

Mr. Llew Smith: May I give the Secretary of State another opportunity to explain this to the House? If the electorate are dissatisfied with one Member of the European Parliament, how can they rid themselves of that MEP under the regional list system?

Mr. Straw: I have already explained that: the electorate should not vote for the list that includes that candidate. It is a straightforward system.

Mr. Gill: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Straw: Let me get on; I hope to give some comfort to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] It may be a matter of dispute between the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and his colleagues, but it is not for me.
When a party wins one or more seats, its candidates are elected in the order in which they appear on the list. The fact that voters are unable to influence the order in which candidates are on a party list has attracted some adverse comment, both outside and inside the House. Let me explain the reasoning behind that.
The electoral regions will be very large, and individual candidates are unlikely to be known by more than a small—not to say tiny—fraction of the electorate. Voters cannot, therefore, be expected to make an informed choice between individual candidates from the same party. If the electorate were required to rank candidates of the same party, such choices could be arbitrary. I also fear that it could disadvantage women and ethnic minority candidates. I understand that Lord Plant shares that view.
To reinforce the point, lest that is somehow presented as a radical departure, let us not forget that that is essentially the way in which hon. Members are chosen. Candidates are selected by the parties, and voters have no influence over who the representative of their chosen party will be in their constituency. If they do not like the representative of the party, they have to vote for a different party. That is the simple way in which the system operates and the way in which this system will operate.
The system that is set out in the Bill has the great virtue of simplicity. As now under the first-past-the-post system, the elector has to mark a single cross on the ballot paper. As I mentioned, simple list systems of that sort are already used by nearly two thirds of voters in the European Union to elect their MEPs, so we are in reasonable company.
I realise that this is an important issue that goes to the heart of the Bill, and I have listened carefully to all the representations that have been made to me on the point. In particular, it has been suggested, both by the constitutional group Charter 88 and by the Liberal Democrats, that we could introduce an electoral system of the sort that operates in Belgium and Denmark, whereby voters can vote either for the party list as a whole or for

an individual candidate from the party list—or, of course, for an independent candidate. Under that system, party votes and individual votes are combined to determine how many seats each party is entitled to, then seats are allocated to candidates by a method that adds party votes to those received by individual party candidates.
As with any other system, there are arguments both ways. The modification of what we propose in the Bill would provide some more direct voter preference and may assuage the concerns even of the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham.

Mr. Hogg: For Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Mr. Straw: I apologise.
On the other hand, that is marginally more complex than the present simple system that we propose, and it is possible for a candidate low down on a party list to receive many personal votes—perhaps more than those of his or her party colleagues—yet still not be elected, because the weight of party votes helps those higher up the list.
Nevertheless, I am prepared to listen to the arguments for adopting a Belgian-type system and to give them careful consideration. To help hon. Members, I shall arrange for a brief description of how the Belgian system operates to be placed in the Library, alongside a greater description of how the system in the Bill is intended to operate, and I shall be interested to learn how hon. Members on both sides of the House perceive the system. This will therefore be a subject to which we can return at a later stage of the Bill's passage.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I give way first to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney).

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I want to be clear as to what the Home Secretary has said. Has he just said that, having proposed the Second Reading of a major Government Bill, he is now signalling that he is willing to change one of the fundamental aspects of that Bill?

Mr. Straw: It may come as a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the previous Government, who did so badly, that we are a party and a Government who listen to argument.
I do not propose that we adopt the open list system that was in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, because there are all sorts of disadvantages in electors simply trying to rank candidates on a list and not being able to choose a party list if they wish to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
However, I am willing to look—I do not say that we have signed up to them—at the proposals that we received after the Bill's publication from the Liberal Democrats and from Charter 88 for a modification of our simple list system. Under that modification, it will be open to electors to vote for the party list as a party list, if they wish to do so. It happens in Belgium. The majority—I


think the overwhelming majority—of voters, offered that free choice, do so, but it will also be open to voters to vote, if they wish, for an individual candidate on the party list. When it comes to the allocation of seats within the total that a particular party has won, those personal votes are added to the votes that it received.
I hope that we can achieve—because I happen to think that it is the House that should decide these things—a serious debate on the merits of that proposal, as opposed to the proposal in the original Bill. I have not come to a firm view. I certainly believe that the old complicated system in the 1978 Act has many disadvantages, but I can see the argument in favour of this one. I am willing to have it discussed.

Mr. Beith: I thank the Home Secretary for taking this open-minded view after the long discussions that we have had. He should not accept criticism from those who, having criticised what he proposed, now criticise him for giving any hint of changing his mind. The merit of this system is that, although it allows the party to state its preferred order, it allows a large part of the electorate in that constituency to decide that they are not satisfied with that order and to produce what I might call the Tatton outcome.

Mr. Straw: I understand that point, and I am grateful for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been generous in response to what I have said. He has come to this in an open-minded way.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Home Secretary said that he is considering the possibility of modifying the Bill. Obviously, all the political parties and, indeed, the independents are concerned to know exactly when the legislation will be on the statute book. Does he therefore have a clear timetable as to when a final decision will be taken?

Mr. Straw: The legislation obviously needs to be on the statute book by the end of this parliamentary Session, which is October next year.

Mrs. Ewing: The elections are in June.

Mr. Straw: The elections are in June 1999, but I think that there is ample time within that period to discuss the matter. I shall assist the House and individual Members by ensuring that as much information as possible is made available about those different systems, before the House and the other place come to a conclusion.

Mr. Shepherd: As the Home Secretary did not mention it in his incredible discourse to the House, does he expect turnout to improve? It is now at the extraordinary low level of 36 per cent. and it has been around 30 per cent. Why on earth does he think that the incredible system being proposed should help induce people to come out and vote?

Mr. Straw: We are not a country that can lecture other European nations about turnout. Generally speaking, turnouts are higher in Europe. One argument in favour of change is the fact that turnouts are so low. It is difficult

to argue that the current electoral system has gripped the electorate. It has not. My guess—and it can be only a guess—is that turnout will improve under the proposed system.
I should now like to make some progress. While I have been on my feet, the Chamber has filled up and many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall refer to some more detailed points. Let me explain how vacancies will be filled. Schedule 2 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations that will be subject to parliamentary approval by affirmative resolution. The regulations will provide that when a vacancy occurs in a seat that was originally filled by a candidate from a party list, it should be filled by the next eligible and willing candidate from that list. If, however, the list has been exhausted, or if the vacancy has been caused by the death or resignation of an independent MEP, a by-election will be held.
To work effectively, the electoral system that the Bill will introduce—or a Belgian-type system—requires political parties to be registered. We have already announced that legislation to establish a registration scheme for political parties will be introduced during this parliamentary Session. Once such a scheme is in place, only parties that have been registered will be able to put forward lists of candidates. Of course, independents will also be able to stand.
A registration scheme will have the added advantage that it will offer parties the protection from spoiler candidates such as the notorious case that occurred in the 1994 European elections, involving a candidate who styled himself a "Literal Democrat".
Introducing a new electoral system inevitably involves a good deal of detailed work. New nomination forms need to be designed, new rules about election agents need to be devised and many other practical points have to be covered. All that is consequential on introducing the new system, and will be dealt with in regulations which, of course, the House will be able to approve. Schedule 2 covers the power to make such regulations.
A new ballot paper will need to be designed. I have already produced—and made available in the Library—a sketch of what the ballot paper might look like.
The Bill also permits regulations to be made governing candidates' and parties' election expenditure. Clearly, the old rules, which are concerned solely with controlling the spending of individual candidates at constituency level, are no longer appropriate for a system that is based on the promotion of a party list, so there will need to be limits on parties' regional expenditure. However, as it will be hard to distinguish between parties' regional and national expenditure, we shall need to consider carefully the case for placing limits on national expenditure.
As it has been a matter of some debate since 16 October, when I published our proposals to legislate in respect of the funding of political parties, let me make it clear that paragraph 6 of schedule 2 provides regulation-making power to control national spending by political parties on European elections. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome that.

Mrs. Ewing: Once again, I am grateful to the Home Secretary. As there will be separate lists for Scotland and Wales, recognising the nature of the four-party system in


those countries, will limitations be placed on the unionist parties, so that they spend the same amount as other parties competing in Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Straw: The usual way to place limits on spending is to use a calculation based on the number of electors in the areas where candidates are standing, but, as ever, we are open to representation. We are a listening Government.
We said in our manifesto that we would introduce a proportional voting system for elections to the European Parliament. The system that we are proposing has many advantages. It is appropriate for the nature and functions of the body that is being elected. It will be simple for the electorate to use. It allows independent candidates to stand. It produces fair results so that in each region, a party or independent candidate will win a share of the seats proportionate to the share of the vote in that region. The Bill is another major step forward in the modernisation of our constitution. I commend it to the House.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I congratulate the Home Secretary on one of the most impressive performances that I have seen in the House for a long time: for a man who did not believe a word of what he was saying, he said it with great aplomb. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that the Home Secretary delivered his speech with great charm.
The Home Secretary told us that the Government were elected to improve the democratic process and then signally failed to convince even his hon. Friends that the Bill would in any way achieve that aim.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and I have had a number of friendly but robust exchanges during our time in this place, particularly when I was at the Department of Health. When I was at what was then the Ministry of Transport we became more like-minded. Today we are as one. The hon. Lady put her finger on one of the major flaws of the Bill—the severing of the link between a constituency and its elected representatives. From the expression on the faces of Labour Members, it was clear that many of them agreed with her, as we did.
I was intrigued by the Home Secretary's suggestion that because the single transferable vote works well in Northern Ireland and commands widespread support there, it does not need to be changed. I remind him that the first-past-the-post system works well in England and commands widespread support, so the logic of his position falls.
I was also intrigued by the circular nature of the Home Secretary's argument to the effect that we want a list system so we have to have big regions and that if we have big regions we have to have a closed list system. That argument did not convince the House and it certainly will not carry the Committee, just as the right hon. Gentleman did not carry the House when he failed four times to answer questions from hon. Members, including his hon. Friends, about how electors—and elections are about electors and not party apparatchiks—would get rid of a Member who they thought was doing a poor job.

Mr. Richard Burden: The right hon. Gentleman said that electors are the most

important consideration. Is he the same person who on 13 March 1996 said:
Even in 1983 and 1987 when we won landslide victories, a good 58 per cent. of those who voted supported other parties. We do not need to win over everyone or even most people in order to win."?
Are those the right hon. Gentleman's democratic credentials?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: It is interesting to reflect that the hon. Gentleman's party won fewer votes in 1997 than we won in 1992. That is the best answer that I can give him.
This evening, we are considering a Bill that has been introduced with no justification. Bert Lance said,
If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
The Home Secretary has signally failed to convince the House that there is anything wrong with the present system. He cannot be suggesting that the system is biased in our favour because his party has the preponderance of seats at the moment. He cannot be claiming that the system is too complicated because everybody understands it and is able to go into a voting booth, put a cross on a piece of paper, see the votes counted and understand who has won.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich might have said that the Bill will not only break the link between constituencies and individual elected representatives but will prevent electors from electing individuals—which, thus far, has been another fundamental aspect of our electoral system.
It is worth recalling that most people in democracies around the world vote with the first-past-the-post system. I therefore wondered whether there was perhaps something intrinsically better about the Home Secretary's proposals. I reflected on the fact that, in 1993, after years of unstable government, Italy moved away from a system of proportional representation. After trying PR, France switched back to its second ballot system. The Swedes are changing their PR system, because they discovered that none of their elected representatives was responsible for developments or hazards in any sphere. After introducing PR last year, New Zealand had to wait for more than two months before a Government could be formed. I suspect that the Home Secretary realises, after his private talks with Irish TDs, how much they dislike the system under which they operate.
Therefore, there is no argument that proportional representation is intrinsically better. Consequently, the question is whether less problems—

Mr. Straw: Fewer problems.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: —whether fewer problems are associated with PR. I once read somewhere:
I have not been persuaded that under PR
one does not
end up with a disproportionate power being wielded by small parties. There is no perfect electoral system. Each has its problems and I simply do not believe that the problems
one gets
with PR are less than those
one gets
with the existing system.


I see that the Home Secretary agrees with that statement. It is a good job that he does, because they are not my words but those of the Prime Minister, who uttered those words only a couple of years ago, making it clear that he is quite unimpressed with PR and with the argument that PR provides a system with fewer problems than our current system.

Mr. Straw: I have been following the right hon. Gentleman's speech with care; he is making an important argument. Does he accept that there is a profound difference between the Parliaments that he has described, which are national Parliaments elected to determine a Government, and a European Parliament that in no sense forms—or should form—a Government, and that is wholly and solely a representative body?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: We are talking about the election of public representatives—that is the fundamental issue—which is a feature that is shared by the European Parliament and the House. As hon. Members and the Home Secretary know, the great unspoken aspect of the debate is that this Bill is but a dry run for another Bill which will eventually emerge, stating that the Government have decided to change the method of election to the House.
At the risk of upsetting traditionalists, I shall depart for a moment from the normal confrontational tone of our debates in the House and pay a genuine tribute to the Home Secretary. It was courageous and typically honest of him to state quite openly what he has stated frequently in the past, and what all hon. Members know to be true: when it comes to elections to the House, he has no great love of any form of proportional representation. Hon. Members will remember that fact, which I do not mention in any aggressive sense. I pay tribute to him.
I pay even greater tribute to the Home Secretary because of the nature of the Government. To understand the Government, one must understand two matters. The first is that the Government are determined to be re-elected—for the first time—for a second term, which is in itself a perfectly honourable objective, although it becomes much less honourable if the Government resort to changing the goalposts to achieve it.
The second thing that one must understand about the Government is that their driving emotion is a strong dislike—I shall be diplomatic in my phraseology—for Conservatives. Ministers are perfectly happy to link up with any other party with which they think they can do business, on this or any other issue, permanently to disadvantage the Conservative party. That is a perfectly obvious motivation for the Labour party, and it is why everyone understands that the Bill is but a dry run for what will come later. We will have to proceed on that understanding.

Mr. Beith: I should like to understand two aspects of the Conservatives' position. The first is why they accepted a treaty obligation to have an electoral system for Europe that is based on common principles, including proportionality. The second is why they have retained for all these years the single transferable vote system of proportional representation in Northern Ireland.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I was about to deal with that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)

raised a point on article 138(3). I remind the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that, although that was a treaty obligation—we signed the treaty and took on the obligation—it was one that was subject to unanimity. That aspect of the treaty was as important to us as the treaty obligation itself. I think that he will grant us that, over the years, we have consistently maintained that view.
The Home Secretary made an important point on unanimity. Thus far, because of the need for unanimity, we have not gone along towards a single unified electoral system in Europe. The Bill is a major step in that direction, as he himself acknowledged in his speech. Will he reassure the House that we will not move from any electoral system towards a harmonised European one without the House deciding on such a move and thereby legitimising it?

Mr. Beith: What about Northern Ireland?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: If I may, I will return to that matter.
Why are we considering the Bill when we know that the Prime Minister is not in favour of proportional representation? Who was pushing for it when the Prime Minister was against it? The answer is obvious—it was the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who realised that he and the Liberal Democrats would never be elected to govern. He realised that he had one thing in common with the Prime Minister and the Minister without Portfolio—a willingness to enter into any deal to do down Tories.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil was willing to contemplate any secret deal to achieve that aim, and that is what he and the Government did. Off into a secret room they went—probably, given the favourite genre of the Labour party, a smoke-filled room—and did a secret deal. We still have no idea what the deal was, except that it gave the right hon. Gentleman a seat at the Cabinet table, for an hour every two or three weeks, in return for a commitment to help pass legislation that he and the Prime Minister thought would be to their political advantage and to the political disadvantage of the Conservative party. We shall see.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): The right hon. Gentleman is off on a flight of fancy, and I am loth to interrupt him. He accused my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of having dreamt up the scheme, as if it has come out of the ether. I presume that he has read the House of Commons research paper on the Bill. Does he acknowledge that, on page 17, it quotes my right hon. Friend's party conference speech, of 30 September 1993? My right hon. Friend, then shadow Home Secretary, said:
We will reform the voting system for the European Parliament".
Does the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman accept that there was some precedent for my right hon. Friend's decision on the subject?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I do not want to upset the Minister too much, but the quotation that I gave from the Prime Minister post-dated the one that he has given the House. Mine was from 1994.

Mr. Howarth: For reasons that I well understand, the right hon. Gentleman is confusing arguments about


PR systems for electing a Westminster Parliament with those for electing Members of the European Parliament, which is what the Bill covers. If he checks the quotation that he mentioned, he will find that it refers to the Westminster Parliament.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Minister and to the Home Secretary because it has emerged from the debate so far—and we have been going for only an hour and 20 minutes—that the Labour party is perhaps moving further away from reforming elections to this House. That is a helpful development and I hope that it will continue. The Minister accused me of flights of fancy, but it is not a flight of fancy to say that the leadership of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party met in secret and did deals on this country's constitution. That is a matter of record and we are now starting to see the results of those deals.

Dr. Tony Wright: May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the reason why he is having so much difficulty—and attacking a Bill that does not exist to avoid discussing a Bill that does—is that he does not understand what is going on? The examples that he has given—one party having a civilised discussion with another to improve a measure, and a Home Secretary who accepts arguments about improvements to the Bill to improve voter choice—are examples of the sort of politics that people want. The politics that he is giving us are those that people wanted to boot out.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I shall assume from that that the hon. Gentleman is giving me a gentle rebuke and asking me to get on with my speech about the Bill. I shall be happy to move on to demonstrate its inadequacies to him.
The Bill will sever the direct link between the constituency and the Member. For the first time it will prevent the electors having a direct vote for their representatives. No one should be in any doubt about the fundamental changes in the Bill. It will break the constituency basis of British elections. It will break the individual basis of British elections, and it will break the democratic basis of British elections. It is not new democracy, new young Britain or new modern voting: it is new cynical political control, undreamt of by old Labour.
Let us examine the Bill. Constituencies will go and European-style regions will be in. In future, as the Home Secretary said, Members of the European Parliament will represent, say, Scotland or London, as if those were homogeneous areas. What do Swindon and Land's End by way of the Scilly Isles have as a unifying feature? That is to be a region. Hon. Members will have noticed that the regions are an amalgam of urban and rural areas. Given the Government's record, we all know that the urban voice will prevail at the expense of the rural voice. Who will argue the case for inner London or the west of Scotland? Who will argue the case for minority views in those huge regions? How can Members feel a sense of ownership of their regions or identify with them?
Those of us who spend time, as I suspect most of us do, talking to Members of the European Parliament will know that they are already frequently criticised by their electors for not being seen around. Given the size of their constituencies, they have to spread themselves thinly over a large area. That is already a source of irritation for the

electors, but how much worse will it be when Members of the European Parliament have to cover a region that stretches from Oxford and Milton Keynes, via Portsmouth and Cowes, to Dover? The job will be impossible in any terms that we, as elected representatives, understand our job.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not think that the job is meant to be done in the terms that we understand. The purpose of Members elected under a list system is to do exactly as they are told by the people who decide their position on the list. As long as that is clear, there is no conflict of interest.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I hope that I will not wreck the hon. Lady's reputation, but I entirely agree and I shall come on to that point shortly. The Home Secretary told the all-party electoral reform group recently that, for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, it was important to maintain a constituency link, but that it was not important to do so for the European Parliament. Indeed, the Home Office's press release states:
People do not enjoy, or need,"—
I emphasise that word—
the same close links with their MEP as they do with their MP, so it is possible to elect MEPs on a regional basis.
It is clear that the Home Secretary is determined to sever the link that has stood this country in good stead for hundreds of years.

Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although Members of the European Parliament have a smaller constituency case load, they deal with some constituency work involving personal cases? Under the list system, it is difficult to know to whom an individual could turn.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct and I agree with him. He might have added that, increasingly, businesses make representations on European matters and I know that MEPs for the area that covers my constituency spend a fair time dealing with those matters.
The second point that arises from the Bill is that it will bring party politics into what has hitherto been a representational role. As a Member of Parliament, I act for all my constituents, whether they voted for me or not. I know that that is true of the Home Secretary, because I recently heard a complimentary story about action that he took on behalf of some constituents who probably did not vote for him. I also suspect that it is true of most hon. Members. It is certainly true of Robert Sturdy, the MEP for Cambridgeshire. However, in future, such representatives will be more indebted to their party than to their electors.
The third point is that the Bill will throw away the personal and individual basis of our electoral process. Every vote I have cast has been for a person—a name on a ballot—to represent my interests. I have voted for an individual with strengths and weaknesses, with skills and experience, with a family and a job history. Now I will get to vote only for a party. That is a profound difference and a profoundly backward step. Of course I am proud of my party, just as the Home Secretary is proud of his. I am proud of its history, its achievements, its statesmen and


women and its beliefs. Obviously, I want people to identify with those party aspirations, but I want to vote for a person whom I can test, examine and get to know. The Bill will prevent me from doing that.
What am I offered in the Bill? I am offered one vote for a party, which could give me up to 11 Members of the European Parliament—from four in the north to 11 in the south-east. One vote for one party will produce multiple MEPs. Of course I would want all 11 in that region to be Conservatives. The Home Secretary would want them all to be Labour.

Mr. Straw: No.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Of course he would. The House does not believe the Home Secretary. The voter will not have a chance to have some from one party and some from another, if that is what he chooses. The House should be in no doubt, that is a fundamental change to the way in which we do business.

Mr. Beith: First, under the present system, a voter cannot choose to have one Member from one party and one from another. Secondly, if he does not like the person offered by his party, as has happened to some Conservatives over the years, as well as to some in the Labour party and no doubt to some in my party, his only option is to reject the party's choice. He has no way of substituting another individual from that party whom he would prefer.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of the change. I understand that he has no prospect of getting into government unless proportional representation in Europe bounces across to this House. However, I do not accept the premise from which he is working and I am not impressed by his argument.

Mr. Shepherd: Our politics is often dominated by great issues. In the run-up to the European elections, economic and monetary union will be central. When there are different views on that great issue within all the parties, how can we identify those on a list who are for or against it? The apparatchik rule of central party control will confuse the electorate and reduce the number of votes cast.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes a strong point.
What is envisaged is even more restrictive than what we have talked about so far. The party, not the voters, will decide the order of people to be elected. Surely Ken Coates, Labour MEP for Nottingham, North and Chesterfield, was right to say that with such a system
We will end up with a bunch of new Labour clones. The MEPs elected under this system will not be accountable to their constituents, but to Peter Mandelson—this will be nothing but a recipe for creeping.
Whatever Ken Coates's skills, he does not write editorials for The Times. Lest Labour Members are inclined to dismiss him, let me quote an editorial of 23 October, which says:

The party's actions show all the worrying signs of a leadership that has become obsessed with control.
It continues:
Whatever their personal interest, the dissidents are right to protest against an electoral system that puts the power of selection in the hands of the party's centre, leaving none for voters or party members. This is bad for democracy and will be bad, eventually, for the parties too. The Government plans to introduce the worst possible kind of PR for the European elections. Its 'closed list' system allows voters no say over which candidate they want: they can merely vote for a party, which will then appoint its own placemen to the Parliament.
It concludes:
As it is, 1999's European elections promise to be a triumph of party manipulation over genuine voter choice.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich put it at least as elegantly.
What was the reaction of new Labour to the dissidents in its ranks? Open? Tolerant? Transparent? Modern? It gagged them. They were told that they could not discuss the issue, that they could not criticise the party and that they could not complain. That is new Labour.

Mr. Straw: indicated dissent.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. That is his party. Ken Coates has further said:
If an MP can be gagged and stopped, then democracy is on the way out.
Hugh Kerr, MEP for Essex, West and Hertfordshire, East said that the gagging
shows that new Labour is increasingly authoritarian and centralised.
The Sunday Telegraph tells us that the national executive committee rushed through a new disciplinary code specifically banning MEPs from campaigning against proportional representation.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is not in his place—I wish that he were—thinks that the whole thing is political suicide. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has said:
Many MPs are concerned about the loss of constituency identity by going for a regional list of candidates.
It is a pity that he is not in his place today. He would have found that more of his colleagues than he realised share that concern. According to The Guardian, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) is opposed to centralism and people being barred from voting for individuals. If he were in his place— [Laughter.]

Mr. Burden: rose—

Sir Brian Mawhinney: If he were in his place, as he is—

Mr. Burden: I am here.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I know. If he were in his place, as he is, I would give him an opportunity to confirm the accuracy of that quotation.

Mr. Burden: I know that I have shaved off my moustache, but I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman did not notice me. I oppose the centralisation


of political parties. That is why I welcome the receptiveness that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has shown to the representations that have been put to him and the co-operation that there has been on the issue. As the right hon. Gentleman is obviously so concerned about centralisation and intolerance in political parties, how does he relate what he has just said to the treatment given to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris)?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made his own decision. I regret that he has left the party. I hope that that answers the question.
From Aberdeen to Eastbourne, from St. Ives and Bangor to Norwich, the message to anyone who wants to be a new Labour MEP is clear: "Don't worry about the voters; just mug up on the Mandelson mantra. Learn how to creep and surrender to Millbank thought control. Remember that the party always comes before the voters and that the party is always right."
How will all that come about? The Bill says:
The system of election…shall be a regional list system
and that
A vote may be cast for a registered party".
The Home Secretary does not want the spin doctors to refer to it as a closed list system, but it is. It is closed to the public, but open to new Labour control freaks.
At the electoral reform meeting, the Home Secretary found it necessary to warn the Liberal Democrats not to have an argument in public about the closed list, because otherwise the Tories would capitalise on it. Now he knows that it is not the Tories who will capitalise on it, but the members of his party who are so dissatisfied with the Bill that they will want to examine it further.
What is the redeeming feature of the new system—a redeeming feature so strong that it overrides all the arguments against the Bill that have been aired tonight? Perhaps it is its simplicity. The present system is pretty simple: one voter, one candidate, one vote; count them up and there is one winner.
What is the new system like? I turned to the Home Office handout to find out:

"1. The first seat is allocated to the individual or party with the highest vote. Where the seat is allocated to a party it goes to the first candidate on that party's list.
2. The second seat is allocated in the same way except that if the first seat has gone to a party, that party's total is divided by two.
3. The process continues until all the seats have been allocated. At all stages party totals are divided by the number of seats that party has already been allocated, plus one."
Is that what I am supposed to tell my constituents? I wonder whether there is an easier, simpler way than one person, one vote, one winner.
I turned next to the Library research paper:
The…system used aims to allocate each seat to the party which would at that point have the highest average vote per seat. The total votes of each party are divided by the number of seats it already has plus the next seat to be allocated. Thus the party totals are divided first by 1 [0 seats plus 1] then by 2 [ie 1 seat plus 1] then by 3 [2 seats plus 1] etc. The first seat goes to the party with the largest number in the table below, the next seat to the next highest number etc.

Is that supposed to be an improvement? Is that supposed to be what the Home Secretary started by telling us was a simpler system? The House does not believe a word of it.
The Home Secretary told the electoral reform group that he was thinking of holding the 1999 European elections on a Sunday. Perhaps in his winding-up speech, the Under-Secretary will tell us whether that is still likely.
The Bill offers to so-called new Britain, new Labour's brave new world: no constituencies, no link between an individual MEP and an area, no individual to vote for, no choice of individuals to vote for, no way in which to buck the control of the party machine, and no understanding by most people of what they are doing or why.
In truth this is just an old-fashioned political deal, based on political expediency, between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats—at the expense of the British people and of the traditional British voter's link with his or her public representative, elected personally.
So much for openness and transparency. So much for being modern and accountable. So much for the Home Secretary's reputation; he is introducing a Bill in which even he does not believe. Like him, we do not believe in it. Unlike him, we shall vote against it.

Mr. Richard Burden: I congratulate the shadow Home Secretary on an imaginative way of attempting to oppose the Bill. The only trouble was that he did not actually address what is in the Bill—and I found his unique interpretation of the term "secret deal" most interesting.
I was under the impression that the hallmark of a secret deal was the fact that people did not know about it, yet the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be criticising the pre-election agreement between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats on constitutional affairs, which was not only published but announced at a press conference and mentioned in the party manifestos. If that was a secret deal, it was rather different from my normal definition of that term.
I welcome the Bill. Such arrangements have been a long time coming. Several treaties and other agreements in Europe, some of which have been mentioned, have already urged a more common and compatible electoral procedure for the European Parliament.
That is different from saying that all European Parliament electoral procedures in each member state must be identical. At present, no two systems for election to the European Parliament are identical. If we want a Parliament that will hang together as a representative body—as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, it is not a Government body—it is important that the essential principles of the electoral systems by which Members get to that place should be compatible.
That seems to me a fairly elementary point, but the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) did not mention it in his long speech. When Members of the European Parliament go to Strasbourg, the strength of the parties there should be broadly proportional to their voting strength in the elections. That fairly simple point seems to be lost on Conservative Members.
The elections to the European Parliament now reflect that principle, in one way or another, in most member states—except Britain. Today, we have the chance to begin the process of putting that right.
The system is based on regional lists, and there have been some criticisms of that in the debate. I shall return to the subject. It is important that we also examine the system that we already have in Britain, and the distortions that it produces.
Few systems are wholly proportional. Indeed, these days few people would seriously suggest that an electoral system should be entirely proportional. That is very difficult to arrange. The first-past-the-post system goes to the other extreme.
Labour as a party has often done fairly well out of that system. In the most recent European elections we got about 44 per cent. of the vote—a sizeable vote and a good success for the party. However, on that 44 per cent. share of the vote we secured 74 per cent. of the seats. The Liberal Democrats secured about 17 per cent. of the vote, yet ended up with 2 per cent. of the seats.
I realise that Conservative Members may have difficulty with my argument, because I am not putting it forward on the basis of looking at the entire political process simply by asking what will be to our party's advantage. I am trying to address a democratic issue.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman should look around at his own party's Benches, when they are occupied, because the concern about his argument is shared on both sides of the House. He should also remember that this is a highly controversial measure. He has already heard interventions by his hon. Friends who do not support the method of denigrating another argument in that way, by focusing it on us.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman has an honourable record of looking for greater democracy and openness in the House, and I pay tribute to him for that.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire did not address the argument that is most important for the debate—the principle that, if a party wins seats in the European Parliament, there should be some relationship between the number of seats won and its voting strength.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burden: I shall let the right hon. and learned Gentleman in soon.
The distortions in this country's present system are extreme. No system is wholly proportional, but the distortions are so great as to require attention. The Bill attempts to deal with that.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that for those purposes my right hon. Friend is trying to oppose—or, indeed, that I am doing so—proportional representation as a means of electing the European Parliament. Our objection is to a particular kind of proportional representation. The hon. Gentleman needs to focus on asking why we are to have a proportional representation system that does away with

the constituency basis for choosing Members, while giving party bosses exclusive control over the candidates. That is the real issue that the House wants to discuss.

Mr. Burden: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is patient, I shall come to those points.
In looking at the genesis of the Bill—and its importance to the House and to democracy in this country—it is important that we address the distortions in the present system. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said, essentially, "If it ain't bust, don't fix it." My view is that the present system of elections to the European Parliament is bust—or, if not bust, severely weakened by distortions.
That is certainly the case in terms of seats won in relation to votes cast, but it also produces distortions within the European Parliament. The party group to which my party is affiliated in the European Union, the Party of European Socialists, is the largest group; that is absolutely right, given the number of votes cast. I admit that the numerical dominance of the group is out of kilter with the overall number of votes cast. The situation was reversed between 1979 and 1984, when the right-wing group experienced a similar dominance. That has developed because elections in this country have been an influence and because our electoral system is out of kilter in terms of votes cast and seats won.
Some groups within the European Parliament are under-represented, and that will continue under the present system. I hold no brief for the Green party which, in recent elections, has secured very few votes. That was not always the case. In 1989, the Green party in this country secured one of the highest votes in a European election of any Green party in Europe—nearly 15 per cent. It has not repeated that share of the vote. Although the Green party achieved a high proportion of the vote, the UK did not elect one Green MEP. It is right that we address that problem.
It is not as if Green parties are not represented in the European Parliament—about 27 Green MEPs were elected in that election, often on a lower proportion of the vote. It may be that the systems in other European member states are wrong. Their thresholds may be too low, which may lead to the over-representation of minority parties. I ask the House to consider whether our system—in which a party that gets a significant share of the vote does not gain one MEP—is right.
The share of the seats won in European elections may be out of kilter with the share of the vote that a party secures. Does the British system have other compensatory benefits? In the main, it does not. One issue which could be looked at, and to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred, is participation. Does our system encourage a closer relationship between the electorate and the MEP at the time of election? Is that reflected in a high turnout? It is not. At the last European election, Britain had the third lowest turnout. In 1989, Britain had the lowest turnout. That is not a great vote of confidence for our electoral system.
Does our system provide a greater balance? For instance, does it ensure that the right proportion of women are elected as MEPs? It does not. At the last election, only two countries in Europe—Italy and Portugal—had a lower proportion of women MEPs elected than Britain. The


argument, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," does not stand up. There is a huge disparity between seats won and votes cast, but we do not have other compensating factors.
Arguments have been made about whether the regions are the right kind of area from which MEPs should be elected, and these arguments deserve an answer. It is right in this House to pay tribute to the work of MEPs of all parties in Brussels and Strasbourg, as they do an excellent job. The fact is that the constituency basis for MEPs provides no great coherence. Until recently—fortunately, the name is changing as a result of the last boundary review—I lived in the Birmingham, East European constituency. That is a simple title, but there is one fundamental problem—my house is in west Birmingham. It is a strange situation.
The constituencies are very large and the ability of MEPs to relate closely to individual constituents is limited. If we are looking for an appropriate area from which MEPs might be elected, the regional basis has a good deal going for it. In the economic life of our country, the regions are becoming more and more important.
We are engaged in serious constitutional change in which the regional dimension in England will become increasingly important, and I look forward to the creation of regional development agencies and other initiatives. If they are to work, it is important that the economic system relates to the political system, and vice versa. The regional dimension is very important in terms of the distribution of European structural funds. Giving the European Parliament a direct relationship with the regions makes great sense.
The new system will also be important in terms of subsidiarity. In my view, subsidiarity does not stop at a national level, and the objective of all parties should be to locate power at the lowest possible level appropriate for the functions through which any legislature or representative body exercises its power or influence.
Whereas in most parts of Europe, the regional dimension has been recognised—regions have benefited from that recognition—this country has not done that sufficiently. We are now seeing improvements with devolution and the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. That will devolve power from the centre here in London, and I look forward to the English regional dimension being promoted in the UK. If the European Parliament can be linked with that, it will be good for our economy and—more important, in respect of this debate—good for democracy.
Before the Bill was published, concerns were expressed about what has been called the closed list system—in other words, the system whereby individual voters have the chance to vote for a party or an independent candidate, but not to express a preference for an individual candidate within a party. I had reservations about that as well. The British tradition of being able to vote for a person and not just a party is important, and we need to think seriously before we depart from it. It is not a one-way street.
A multi-Member constituency system for MEPs has a down side. Different candidates from the same party campaign against each other and become involved in a kind of beauty contest to ensure that they get more votes than the other candidate from the party. That may or may not be healthy for democracy. I want to retain the voters' right to chose between candidates, but I should make it clear that there is a down side to the system.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said at the beginning of the debate. Legitimate concerns have been expressed about the closed list system. There need not be a straight choice between a system that is entirely open—in which it is left to the voter to chose between candidates, without any party role being involved—and a closed list system. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has listened to the many representations made to him, and has said that he will reconsider. I look forward to the debates that will take place in Committee and outside.
When they oppose the Bill, Opposition Front Benchers should take into account what was said by my right hon. Friend. It appeared from what was said by the shadow Home Secretary that he had not heard my right hon. Friend's recognition of some of the anxieties that had been expressed, and his undertaking to address them. I feel that my right hon. Friend's reassurance should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I welcome the Bill.
At times, today's debate has almost resembled a proxy debate about electoral reform of the House of Commons. I am known to support electoral reform of the House of Commons, as well as electoral reform of the European Parliament. It has been said that electoral reform of the House would inevitably destroy the link between Members of Parliament and constituencies, but that is not true. A number of proportional representation systems retain that link. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) shakes his head, but I can tell him that the "additional Member" system retains the link between a single Member of Parliament and a constituency. The retention of the link is entirely possible under a proportional representation system.

Mr. Robert Syms: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, under the "additional Member" system, there are two categories of Member of Parliament—those who represent constituencies, and those who are on a party list? That changes the nature of politics and representative democracy, because it involves people with different responsibilities.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right in that, under the "additional Member" system, Members of Parliament would arrive in the House of Commons, or whatever legislature was involved, by different routes; but I was making another point. It was said earlier that a proportional system would destroy the link between Member and constituency, and that is not so. Under the "additional Member" system, there is a link between the individual Member and the constituency. There may be another category of Members by virtue of the top-up system, but that is a different question. It may be desirable; the hon. Gentleman clearly considers it undesirable, but I believe that it could introduce a diversity and richness from which the House could benefit. I do not see why we need have any great attachment to the idea that Members of Parliament must all arrive here by one route.
We can debate that when the time comes, of course, but I think that we need to be clear about our facts. It is erroneous to say that a proportional system inevitably means destroying the link between an individual Member and a constituency. Moreover, there are other proportional


systems based on multi-Member constituencies that retain a link between Members and the constituency. The two systems are not in conflict.
That, however, is a debate for another time. Suffice it to say now that I will welcome—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reaffirmed the commitment in our manifesto—the early establishment of an independent commission on voting systems, which will examine these questions in detail. I welcome the commitment, both in the manifesto and in the agreement with the Liberal Democrats that was made before the election, for the commission to be charged with recommending a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system. I especially welcome the commitment to ensure that it will not be politicians, but the people, who ultimately decide the shape of our Parliament and our parliamentary elections. That is why I am so pleased about the commitment to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons.
That is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about the electoral system for the European Parliament, which raises different issues. As I have said, I support electoral reform for both Westminster and Europe, but it is entirely possible and logical to support electoral reform and proportional representation for Europe and to oppose it for the House of Commons. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly said, different representative bodies have different functions, and there is no one ideal voting system that is appropriate to all circumstances. The idea that, in principle, there should be a single Member is not appropriate to all circumstances. At times, the shadow Home Secretary seemed to suggest that he considered that to be a principle; he should look at our current system of local government, which, in most parts of the country, is based on multi-member constituencies.
One principle strikes me as important—a principle that 1 mentioned at the beginning of my speech. If we are to be taken seriously in Europe, and if we are to have a representative body in the European Parliament that will be credible both at home and in Europe, is it too much to ask that the seats won by parties should broadly reflect the support that those parties receive in the country?

Mr. Shepherd: We are talking about representative systems, and I am mindful of what actually happens in Europe. I personally feel that this represents the degradation of democracy, but I will cite my reasons.
The European Parliament voted on the Maastricht treaty. All the various systems pulled together with their representatives in Strasbourg, and voted on the treaty. It was almost a hallelujah performance. They acclaimed the treaty—but what happened in the electorates that they supposedly represented when it was put as a direct proposition? The hon. Gentleman will have noted what happened in France, where the result was 49 per cent. to 51 per cent., and Denmark actually rejected the treaty. The system that the hon. Gentleman proposes is no more representative than a dance on a drum.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman's views on Maastricht are well known, but I have witnessed debates in the European Parliament. I should point out that, although the vote in France was close, it was in favour of the Maastricht treaty.
Although there is some strength in the way in which the House conducts its affairs, it could learn one or two things from other legislatures. The confrontational "one gang against another" style that we have seen here—I am pleased that the present Government are trying to do something about it—does not feature to the same extent in the European Parliament. Of course, the European Parliament has all sorts of weaknesses—it does many things of which I do not approve, and many things that could be done better—but, if we are to improve the workings of the House of Commons, we can learn a good deal from what happens elsewhere. I know that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) wants to do that, as he has commented on these matters many times. We should not dismiss the traditions of other legislatures quite so quickly.
Let me return to the central part of the Bill. The point is to ensure that the number of seats won reflects the number of votes cast. I welcome the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look again at some of the details, and I am convinced that, in the context of the wider constitutional agenda—of devolution for Scotland and Wales, the expansion of the regional dimension here in England, the creation of a Greater London authority and the ability of the people to decide the voting system that is best for the House of Commons—the Bill will prove a boost and a boon to democracy.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. It gives us an opportunity to provide fair voting for Europe. It fulfils a commitment that successive British Governments have made through treaty obligations, and it implements an agreement that was made publicly between my party and the Labour party before the election and put to the voters at the election—an agreement that we would reform the system for European elections. Although we would suggest some improvements to the Bill, the Home Secretary has already said that he has an open mind on the key point. We applaud the determination with which the Government have produced the Bill in sufficient time to ensure that the next European elections are fought according to a fair system.
I was amazed to hear the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) first attacking the Home Secretary for appearing to change his mind, and then revealing that his main criticism of the Bill was the very point on which the Home Secretary had said that he was willing to listen to arguments. At no stage did the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he might actually vote for amendments, such as those that we shall table, that would achieve his objective by introducing a system with more voter choice within the regional list structure.
At the moment, we have a closed list system of one, with no proportionality. The total outcome is nowhere near proportional, and people who strongly disapprove of their party's one candidate can effectively express that disapproval only by voting against their own party, and perhaps bringing about the election of a candidate from another. Many people are not willing to do that.
Much as many of us like to promote the idea of the individual in politics, there is no doubt that most people, at every opportunity, make a party choice. That is a fact


of political life, from which many of us often gain. There is a myth surrounding the British political system, pretending that voters have nothing to do with parties. Party names used to be kept off ballot papers on that principle, but that is long gone. Parties are central to the British political system.
We value the opportunity that can be given to voters to affect the way in which parties determine who is to stand on their behalf, and to express their views directly, as they will be able to do in the referendum on the electoral system for Westminster. We welcome the Government's commitment to that.
The first-past-the-post system as used in the European Parliament elections produces the most outlandish outcomes, bearing no relation to the votes cast. The system applies only in England, Scotland and Wales. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire, who comes from Northern Ireland, never explained why it was acceptable for Northern Ireland to have a proportional system, when it was anathema to him for England, Scotland and Wales to have one.
What has the system produced in Great Britain? In 1984, the Conservatives won 45 seats on 38.8 per cent. of the vote, while Labour won just 32 seats on only 4 per cent. fewer votes. At that stage, British seats made up about one fifth of the Parliament, so misrepresentation of the votes cast in Britain could have a significant effect on the political balance.
It is as if one county in England suddenly decided, of its own accord, to run a completely different electoral system for Westminster from that of the rest of the country, and had enough seats to make a profound difference to the balance of the parties. That clearly could not continue. We have a treaty obligation to make a change.
Had the votes in 1984 been counted on a proportional basis, the Conservative representation in the European Parliament would have been reduced by almost one third. We won no seats at all, despite winning more than half the number of votes obtained by Labour. In the 1989 election, the Green party won 15 per cent. of the votes— a respectable tally for a party that came from nowhere, and has since returned there—and got no seats. That is not a fair outcome. The Conservatives won 32 seats on only twice as many votes as the Green party, which got none.
In 1994, Labour got 74 per cent. of the seats on 44 per cent. of the votes. That is 25 more seats than it would have won on a proportional system. The Tories got 28 per cent. of the votes and 21 per cent. of the seats. We got 16 per cent. of the vote and 2 per cent. of the seats. The system produces the most ludicrous results in terms of the number of representatives sent to the European Parliament by each party.
To claim that the system is retained in order to preserve a sacred link between the voter and his representative in Euro-constituencies simply flies in the face of reality. If any hon. Member goes out into the street and asks any passer-by to name his Member of the European Parliament—or, better still, to name his European constituency—he will get a pretty low tally. It can sometimes be embarrassing to do that for Westminster Members of Parliament, but we would get a much better total for them than for Members of the European Parliament, for whom the results would be derisory.
The system does not work in single-Member constituencies, because they are too large to be treated as we try to treat Westminster constituencies. Legitimate questions can be asked about the role of the voter in relation to the candidate. For example: how does one get rid of a Member whom one does not want? Earlier, I called that the Tatton question. It is significant that, in those circumstances, to avoid putting people in the dilemma of being only able to elect someone of a different party, two parties stood down.
The scale of European constituencies is such that it is almost impossible to get rid of someone of whose financial dealings one disapproves or who represents a point of view that is completely alien to that of most of the party. That has not happened in any European constituency since the system was introduced. Members of various parties are most critical of their Members of the European Parliament, but they have never yet mounted a successful campaign to get them unseated by the electorate.
It would be better to introduce some voter choice into the regional list system, as some other countries do. By doing so, we would involve the voters more fully in the election. We must try to increase the participation of British people in European elections. We shall not do that by giving them a system in which the outcome in most constituencies is certain, giving them no chance of securing representation for their favoured party, which is what happens now.
Proportionality should increase the attractiveness of taking part in an election, and it would be increased further if we allowed people to use their votes to change the order of candidates. That was attempted in 1977, when options were put before the House to allow voters to have one vote only, which they would give to a candidate but which would also count as the party vote.
The disadvantage of that system from the Government's point of view is that it does not involve the party in setting out a preferred choice. It is reasonable to say that a party should be allowed to put to the electorate its view of what the order should be, even if the electorate can then modify or disrupt that view.
We have proposed a compromise, given our known preference for the single transferable vote system, in which people cast a party vote but can, if they prefer, choose which candidate should be ranked highest. If enough people do that, we can ensure that someone lower down the party's list has the best chance of being elected.
It has been argued that, in such a system, it is possible for someone to get many—indeed a majority—of the preference votes and still not be elected, but that is because the majority of people have declared themselves content with the party choice by voting the straight party ticket. A successful rebellion, as it were, involves a majority of the party's voters seeking to overturn its choice. That opportunity should be there.
I hope that the consideration launched by the Home Secretary today will lead him and his hon. Friends—and, indeed, Conservative Members—to accept that the regional list system would be better with that element of choice. We shall certainly table an amendment to that effect and, if the Government want to improve its wording or tighten it up, we shall welcome that.
The Home Secretary launched, perhaps unwisely, in some detail on the subject of the relative merits of different divisor systems. Suffice it to say that the Sainte-Lague system helps to ensure a more proportional result, particularly if many of the constituencies each have a relatively small number of MEPs. That is because the standard Government regions and nations have been chosen. For example, we have a five-seat constituency in Wales and a four-seat constituency in the north of England.
It should be fairly obvious to hon. Members that a high vote would be needed to get a minority candidate elected in a four or five-seat constituency, so the way in which we deal with surplus votes is crucial. The Sainte-Lague divisor would ensure that, on the basis of the general election results, there would be at least a third party representation in Wales, for example. Representation would not be confined to the two largest parties. On the general election results, in Wales Labour would get a disproportionate share of the seats—80 per cent.—on just over 50 per cent. of the vote.
Overall, the Home Secretary is right to say that, given a sufficient number of constituencies of sufficient size, there is not much difference between the two systems but, on the scale of the smaller constituencies, the difference is significant. That may be important, especially in Wales, northern England or other smaller constituencies. We shall press the Government to reconsider by tabling an amendment.
I welcome the Bill's reference to a cash limit on the amount that parties can spend nationally during the European elections. In a way, a change was inevitable because we are no longer dealing only with single candidates. It is absurd that candidates in elections to Westminster are strictly limited on what they can spend— their agents can go to gaol, as happened to a Labour agent in a constituency that neighbours mine—but nationally, parties can spend as much as they can raise, by whatever means they can raise it. That must change for Westminster. We support the Government's moves in that direction and welcome the inclusion of this provision in the Bill.
Through this Bill, or through electoral registration legislation, we may have to address the legal position of measures that parties might take to get more women on to lists. It is up to parties whether they choose to adopt the methods that Labour has used in the past, or that we have considered, to try to ensure that voters have a fair choice of both sexes, but there are legal problems, as Labour found before the general election. We should define the position more clearly to avoid legal tangles.
We cannot go on running European elections on a system that produces outlandishly disproportionate results or go on pretending that there is some mystic union between Members of the European Parliament and every one of their 200,000 constituents. That is not the real world. We want to elect to the European Parliament Members who broadly represent the proportion of votes cast for the various parties and to ensure that, in the process of electing them, voters have as much choice as possible. I believe that the Bill is the right vehicle to do that. If it can be improved by more open lists in the way that we have suggested, it will be a very good Bill and we shall certainly support it.

Mr. David Drew: This is an important debate that shows us along an important path towards electoral reform. As one who has long opposed the arrogance of first past the post, I find it pleasing that, on the back of Scotland and Wales, we are prepared to change our European electoral system. That is long overdue. I strongly welcome the move towards proportionality as a means of achieving that.
I also welcome the approach of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which I imagine will now be called the "Straw compromise". He is open to considering different approaches to the issue. That is important in its own right, because the history of electoral reform in Britain has been one of listening to people from different political persuasions and of no party political persuasion. That shows the strength of the movement.
I declare an interest as a member of Charter 88 from its inception. The strength of the electoral reform movement has been borne out by the way in which we have managed to pull together across the political divide and produce a coherent strategy. What may technically be called the part-open list approach offers us the best of both worlds. We shall get a regional list system, which involves a vote for a party but offers the electorate the ability to choose the people whom they most want to represent them. I hope that we shall consider—as the Government have apparently done—how we can put together the best possible way of electing representatives by a system which I believe will be fairer and more representative, and will bring to the fore a regional perspective.
One reason why I have always supported electoral reform is that I strongly believe in using the appropriate method for the different electoral challenges that we face. I am more than happy, and open-minded enough, to believe that we can have our cake and eat it. At the outset, we could have considered the single transferable vote. We have come down in favour of a regional list system, one of the strengths of which is that it allows checks and balances. It allows us to do things differently for Scotland and Wales from how we do things for our Westminster Parliament and our European Parliament. That is a strength of the electoral reform movement.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend. If he is prepared to consider a single transferable vote, would it not be sensible to use it within existing European constituencies? That would retain the link between Members and constituents while keeping some idea of proportional representation.

Mr. Drew: I welcome my hon. Friend's comment. As with anything, we must plump for the appropriate system for the assembly concerned. For all sorts of reasons, the regional list system was chosen. I would not have been unhappy to consider STV for the European elections but we have chosen an alternative system. More important than the particular system that we have chosen is the fact that it provides checks and balances in respect of the different ways in which we elect our representatives for different assemblies. As long as we can run that on a fair-minded basis, and recognise that the electorate will now get a choice of person as well as of party, we can have the best of all worlds.
I welcome the Bill because of the checks and balances that it offers and because I represent a south-western constituency. All too often, we have ended up in the south-west with one party, or one and a bit parties, dominant. That is neither fair nor reasonable when people want to know that their vote counts. Understandably, because their vote counts for both a party and a person, they want to have some knowledge of whom they are voting for, even though they may not get that person elected under the present system. With the alternatives that are being made available, they can make their votes count. That is why proportionality is such an important principle.
People in the south-west will be able to vote Labour on the understanding that they will elect Labour representatives. While we may have been fortunate in the roll of the dice in the May general election, we must find systems that have checks and balances and that allow people to know that their vote counts. That is why I support this approach, which brings together alternatives that mean that people know, when they vote in different elections for different bodies, that, while their votes may count in different ways, they will bring forth a true representative democracy. I believe that that will lead to increased turnouts. People will know that their votes are being collected and used properly. Unlike previous European elections, I expect that more people will vote when we go to the polls next time because people will see that their vote counts. I welcome that.
Finally, I should like to say something that might sound strange coming from a Labour Member. In 1989, it was a scandal that, although 14.9 per cent. of the electorate voted for the Greens—a party I have fought at parliamentary and local level, and whose principles and policies I do not support in many respects—no one from that party was elected to the assembly in Europe. The most recent election was the first in which Liberal Democrats were elected under our bizarre first-past-the-post system. Looking at my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is nodding, I can say that it is wrong that, in the past, people's votes did not count. At least we have remedied that in part, albeit not well enough.
I warmly welcome the direction in which the Government are moving. We have bitten the bullet and demonstrated that we are prepared to consider alternative ways to elect members to different assemblies. On the question of the loss of a constituency, how can anyone pretend that an MEP has a constituency? Given that the number of people an MEP represents is so large, it is a meaningless concept. On the basis of the proposals in the Bill, an MEP will represent a region and advance a regional agenda—a form of regionalism that will take forward the debate in the south-west and every other part of the British Isles. We are considering a system that is fairer, more representative and more efficient and will lead to higher turnouts. I hope that the compromise offered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be taken up so that we can find the most appropriate system—a system that the people will support.

Mr. David Curry: The Home Secretary announced that the Bill was designed to improve the democratic process, and promptly almost collapsed in a fit of giggles. That clearly sums up his

attitude to the legislation, which is redolent of lack of belief. Had he come to the Chamber and said, "Don't blame me, Guv—I'm only here to read the speech," we would have entirely understood the attitude he displayed. He set off at a funereal tempo and became even slower as his speech progressed—it was one of the few speeches that came to a halt before it started. He also demonstrated that he understood the nature of neither the American Congress, nor the European Parliament. To be ignorant of one is remiss, but to be ignorant of both is positively inspired.
Some of the speeches tonight have caused the House to resemble a set of engineers who are fascinated by what lies under the bonnet of the bus, but occasionally forgetful of the fact that there are passengers on the bus and that their prime concern should be to deliver the passengers to their destination, rather than to be preoccupied with the state of the plugs. We must not become completely fascinated by electoral systems.
Although I enjoyed the Home Secretary's cheap jibe about the Belgians—I should point out that Monsieur d'Hondt was almost certainly a Fleming, rather than a Walloon, and that the correct form of address is Mynheer d'Hondt—we should address ourselves more precisely to the nature of the system we are trying to sustain and to how the electors benefit from that system, rather than simply enjoying its intricacies.
I spent 10 years in the European Parliament and would accept that the role of an MEP is not the same as that of a Member of Parliament. The people an MEP deals with tend to be more institutional, in the sense that one's three major client groups tend to be local government and public bodies, education, and business.
That is the nature of the European Parliament—as an organisation, it has powers to amend and now to prevent legislation, and those tend to be the groups most affected by such measures. One does not wish to ignore the important individual cases that arise, but they do not rank in the same order as they would for a Member of Parliament in the surgeries to which the Home Secretary referred. Incidentally, he is jolly lucky if his surgeries are thinly enough attended to let him get through them on a Friday evening.
It is also slightly discouraging that the role of MEPs in their current constituencies has been simply dismissed as wholly ineffective. One of my colleagues in the European Parliament was the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin); I am not sure whether she feels that, during her 10 years' service as an MEP, she was wholly ineffective in representing Tyne and Wear.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who represented Mid and West Wales, feels that she wasted her time. I am not sure whether Mrs. Glenys Kinnock thinks that she is ineffective in representing the people of her Welsh constituency. The presumption with which we started the debate—that the present system is indefensible, by definition—is not one that we can accept if we are to have a sensible debate.

Mr. Bermingham: If we introduce a regional system that produces, say, four MEPs for one party, two for another and two for yet another in a 10-seat area, whom should the local council—for example, the metropolitan


borough council of St. Helens, which I represent— approach for assistance in obtaining inward grants for roads and other infrastructure projects? Whose advice should be sought? At the moment, the council has an MEP who very adequately performs that service.

Mr. Curry: That is exactly one of the points I shall address. The council might find that there is no one it can approach, because no one has been elected who has the faintest interest in St. Helens, which would be the worst possible scenario from the council's viewpoint. If individual constituencies are so ineffectual and unable to establish some sort of identity with their MEP, it is curious that our remedy is to base the system on a region with which there would be no identity of any description.
We ask what those regions will consist of, so let us take as an example the south-west. Everybody knows that someone who lives in the Thames valley or in Wiltshire is light years from the preoccupations of the residents of Devon and Cornwall. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) will know that people who live in Cornwall think that the other side of the Tamar is a different country. Being lumped together in a south-west region with no MEP who is identifiable and linked to that part of the world is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, a negation of representative democracy.
We are told that the new system will boost the turnout, but turnouts for elections to a European Parliament will be lower than those to a national Parliament, because nothing is at stake in the same sense as it is for a national Parliament. One votes in a national Parliament election to produce a Government; but the rules of the European Parliament and its constitutional position require weighted majorities, resulting in a need for the major parties to get together across the spectrum to build a consensus. Therefore, the impact of choosing different parties is less obvious, and the incentive to vote is a lesser one, irrespective of the nature of the electoral system.

Mr. George Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman has made interesting and valid points about the reasons why we might have lower turnouts, but in what way does that argument add to his defence of constituencies?

Mr. Curry: At least in a constituency, electors are voting for a specific Member of Parliament, who will retain that constituency link and to whom they can go. I shall outline shortly how, under the regional system, constituents will not have the faintest idea who is supposed to represent them, and will have to take pot luck as to which MEP they end up with.
How are we to get proper coverage in a region? The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) mentioned the possibility of the people elected—the top few in each list—representing only a particular part of a major region. In my own area, I would be fearful of all the MEPs elected tending to represent only the interests grouped around the large metropolitan areas of West and South Yorkshire; I would fear for the fate of North Yorkshire.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked the Home Secretary about the particular status of Cumbria. Cumbria is

wholly different from the regions that lie to its east or its south. It has a strong sense of identity. Its people need to feel that one of theirs is representing them in the European Parliament and is able to respond to their particular needs. How would proper coverage be achieved?
How would the candidates be selected? That is the crucial issue. Is it to be one man, one vote? Are 30 or 40 candidates from Yorkshire and Humberside or the south-east to parade around moots throughout the region offering themselves to the electorate? Will there be party hustings? If there is a restriction on those who can present themselves to be chosen, who will choose the people who are eligible to present themselves to be chosen? Will the party apparatchiks choose them? That is what we all fear, of course. Will the electorate somehow choose them? Will electors spend a whole week interviewing person after person? Will they listen to 15, 20 or 30 candidates? Once candidates are elected, whole parts of the region could find themselves without someone to represent their interests.
How is the order on the list to be determined? Once the list is drawn up, most of the election will be over. One might as well be realistic about it. I know that the Labour party wishes to indulge in some ethnic cleansing of its MEPs. We know that some of them have been rather difficult. Perhaps the Government will devise a system that will enable that purge to take place.
Let us take the south-east, which has the largest number of MEPs—11 are to be elected. In the normal course of events, the first four to five Conservatives on the list will be elected. The first two or three Liberal Democrat and Labour candidates on their list may well be elected. Those at the top part of the list will be able to spend the entire election on holiday in Barbados, or go ahead to Strasbourg to sniff out the best restaurants and offices. They will not need to campaign, because they will be certain of being elected.
Nor will the ones at the bottom of the list need to bother turning up, because they will not be elected. They may as well not take the time off work and lose pay. The only contest that will matter will be between the two or three people in the middle of the list. The real argument will be about them. Everyone else will have been elected by the party apparatchiks who decided where people were placed on the list.

Mr. David Lock: Is not the argument that the right hon. Gentleman makes precisely the same as that which used to apply to his party in the south-east of England? I appreciate that that is a long time ago— we have had several events such as Winchester since then.
If a candidate was selected for the Conservative party for the constituency of South Downs West, he might as well go out and buy the restaurant guide for Strasbourg. The same applied in south Wales. If someone managed to get the Labour nomination for a single-Member constituency, the result was a foregone conclusion. Is not the precise defect of single-Member constituencies the fact that the power resides with the selectocracy—the people who put forward the candidate under the party name—not the people doing the voting?

Mr. Curry: There is a difference that the hon. Gentleman has not identified. At one minute to 7


o'clock on polling day in a Westminster election, every candidate has zero votes. Everyone starts exactly the same. We are moving to a regional list.
The Home Secretary did not answer the question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and others. If I happen to like very much the person who is first on the Conservative list and dislike the person who is second on the list—the same applies to the Labour or Liberal Democrat list— how do I ensure that I get my man elected, not t'other one? That is the crucial issue. The Home Secretary may have given us some way forward, and we wish to explore that.

Mr. Hogg: Is there not another answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock)? The constituency associations—for example, in Westminster seats, but also in Euro-seats—choose the candidate they think is likely to be most attractive to the electorate in that constituency. Accordingly, if there is considerable antipathy to a candidate, it is likely that either the candidate will not be selected in the first instance or that he will be elbowed out by the association responsible for choosing him.

Mr. Curry: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. The associations are often very particular in the requirements that they lay upon their candidates. Even if the candidate is not an original of that part of the world, they make jolly sure that he quickly establishes an identity with it. That is such an important part of the relationship.
The Government are setting up a complicated paraphernalia to govern the way in which the vote is to take place. There is a much easier solution, and the Home Secretary hinted at it. It is to let each party compile a list of as many candidates as there are seats available, and let each elector have that number of votes. If necessary, the elector could vote the ticket as well.
Such a system would not be particularly complicated. The elector could vote across the lists if he wished to do so. Instead of the cabal choosing the people who were elected, the electorate would choose them. That would still be far from perfect, because the problem would remain of who represented which part of the region and with whom people would identify, but at least it would get us off the bizarre, mechanistic approach, and would allow the electorate to make the ultimate decision, which is what our politics should be about.
When I looked in my files, I discovered that the Home Secretary had written to colleagues a little while ago a letter with a breathtaking arrogance to it. It says:
The Government believes that this system is the most appropriate".
Always beware the word "appropriate". It is the word that people use when they cannot think of any other word. In my years as a Minister, I refused to sign any letter that included the word "appropriate". Perhaps the Home Secretary meant that it was the right system.

Mrs. Ewing: I shall check my fishing file.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady may well check her fishing file. I think that she will find that I had a particular

aversion to that terminology. The Home Secretary said that the system was the most appropriate for elections to the European Parliament because
MEPs' links with their constituents are not as close as those of MPs and the public, for the most part, lacks the detailed knowledge which would enable them to make an informed choice between candidates on a party's list;".
That is a blindingly patronising, paternalistic form of authoritarianism. The Home Secretary said that his system
has the virtue of simplicity,"—
anyone hearing his explanation will immediately have grasped its simplicity—
requiring voters only to put a single cross on the ballot paper".
I am sure that voters will be grateful for having democracy made easy. They might well resent having to use their brains in order to cast a vote. The Home Secretary's arrogant little dismissal of the electorate's capacity to think for themselves is particularly offensive. It may be a touching desire to help the poor, bemused voter, but why not trust the voter instead?

Mr. Bermingham: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that such a system also destroys the chance of the individual? Unless voters can vote across a regional list and choose candidates of different parties and flavours, the individualistic person who is sometimes a breath of fresh air in politics—not the machine man—has no chance whatever.

Mr. Curry: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The eccentric has always played an important role in politics and in defending constituents. If we moved to a machine-operated system, we would risk the quality of the people we elected, as well as the quality of the representation they offered to the electorate.
Clause 1(3)(2) states:
A vote may be cast for a registered party, or an individual candidate, named on the ballot paper.
Are those exclusive choices? As the Bill is drafted, could an elector vote for a name on the party list? This is supposed to be an accessible system, but to whom does the poor constituent write? Does he stick a pin in the list of MEPs? Does he write to all 11, or nine, or seven? Will the territory be divided up by the MEPs, like a colony, into districts? Will each MEP have a little parish or bailiwick? Will all electors write to the Minister or the Commissioner on the same subject?
It is a recipe for either massive overkill or nothing whatever. I fear that it might well be the latter. Does the elector simply give up? Does the MEP disappear into cyberspace, leaving only a slowly vanishing dot behind?
We then come to by-elections. The Bill envisages the promotion of the next candidate on the list, unless, I presume, a single independent has been elected and that independent has to be replaced. The measure does not recognise the changing mood of the electorate, and it provides a lovely insurance policy for a party that happens to be in government. Politics needs what my party and all parties have felt from time to time—the sharp dose of purgative that by-elections give, reflecting the changing mood in the country.
This is a fundamentally bad Bill. I find it patronising in concept, undemocratic in its probable operation and open to cabals, cliques and cartels. It is politics by remote control, and I do not like that type of control.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As you will appreciate,Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed that the amendment that I and my hon. Friends tabled has not been selected for debate, but I accept Madam Speaker's decision.
The Bill is about proportionality; I believe that all hon. Members recognise the importance of that principle. I doubt that there is a perfect system of proportional representation. I suspect that many hon. Members, like myself, have received countless letters from school or university students, asking their opinion on PR and the most effective way of introducing it.
I believe that the amendment that I tabled addressed the issue of proportionality. The idea that Scotland should have an additional seat in the next European elections is not new—indeed, we discussed it in 1993, when additional seats were being awarded to the United Kingdom as a whole.
When we discuss the principle of proportionality, it is important to consider Scotland's position. Ministers should read the debate in Committee on the 1993 European Parliamentary Elections Bill, in which the current Prime Minister argued a very strong case that there were three effective reasons why Scotland should have an additional seat. He accepted the strong geographical case for increased Scottish representation, asserted that Scotland was not currently over-represented, and rejected claims that such a move would be unacceptable from an English point of view. The Labour party saw fit to back our amendment in 1993, and I am interested to know the present Government's view, now that Labour has changed sides in the House.
At the end of that debate, the then shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, now the Minister for Film and Tourism, said:
the arguments presented today by the hon. Member for Moray and…by the Labour party are unanswerable."—[Official Report, 6 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 198.]
I wonder why it is not possible, for the purposes of proportionality, to have an additional Member of the European Parliament for Scotland under the new system.
The arguments that were propounded from both sides of the House must be debated and explored. A great deal has been made of the link between a Member of the European Parliament and his or her constituency; that link is important, but the House must examine its conscience on that subject. The first direct elections to the European Parliament were held in 1979, and for years many of us campaigned for a much closer link between MEPs and Members of Parliament, yet only in the past two or three years have we been able to telephone Brussels and Strasbourg directly and had access to fax machines, enabling us to receive material from MEPs and to forward material to them, making possible a real dialogue between the two institutions, which take so many decisions affecting our constituents.
The links between the House and the European Parliament are deplorable. MEPs continue to turn up in this place as "Strangers", and must wait in Central Lobby until their Member of Parliament meets them. Unlike every other Parliament in Europe, we have no effective joint committees.
When hon. Members use the link between the MEP and the constituency as an excuse to avoid the prospect of proportional representation in future elections, they fail to

take into account their past actions. The guilt lies especially with the Conservative party, which was in government for 18 years but did nothing to create a closer connection with European institutions.
It was ridiculous that I had to wait so long before it was possible for me to send material to my MEP in an envelope provided by the House of Commons with a European stamp on it, without having to pay out of my pocket, as I did for many years. I object not to the finance but to the fact that the House did not foster these contacts far earlier, and create a more effective link.
The links of the House with constituents are far from perfect. I hope that the Government will put that issue on their agenda and consider creating joint committees in which MEPs can join us in debates on the series of issues that we are discussing as we look to the next European elections and to a closer union and the expansion of the Union.
I say to hon. Members who speak about their fear of apparatchiks in Millbank, Smith square or, I suppose, North Charlotte street in Edinburgh, which is where my party's headquarters may be found, that the choice of candidates for a list system is a challenge to all the parties. Four or five people sitting in smoke-filled rooms—or, to be politically correct, non-smoke-filled rooms—must not decide the names on the list. We should have enough confidence in political party activists to allow them to help decide the candidates.
I know that that would be difficult for the Conservative party because, as we well know, it has undergone deliberations even on how it elects its leader, about how decisions are taken about the management or design of conferences, and on how individuals can introduce resolutions so that real debates take place at the party conference. Internal democracy in parties will be under scrutiny.

Mr. George Howarth: indicated assent.

Mrs. Ewing: The Minister nods in approval. He must know from his experience at this year's Labour party conference that the apparatchiks did not always get the results they want in the national executive committee elections. This is where the right of each member of a party to help decide which names appear on the lists is extremely important. This is not a question of "control freaks"; it is about democracy within parties, and we must look at ourselves to choose the best way to proceed.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) suggested that the Government were considering holding elections for the European Parliament on a Sunday. May I make a particular plea against that thought, if that is what it is at the moment?
My constituency lies in the Highlands and Islands European constituency, and we do not even count on a Sunday. It is a fairly nail-biting process waiting from the close of the poll at 10 pm on a Thursday until Monday before we get on with the count. That is done in recognition of the feelings of people in our area who have strong Sabbatarian views, and I am sure that there are many other areas in the United Kingdom where people would object to the concept of voting on a Sunday. It happens in continental Europe, but it has never been our practice in the United Kingdom, and I would make a special plea that it is not considered.
Secondly, the time scale of the legislation should be clarified. I have read the Charter 88 material. I have listened to the Home Secretary's interesting and erudite comments, the details of which I shall study when I have the Official Report tomorrow, because none of us would claim to understand all the niceties of what he was talking about. I welcome the possibility that he is considering a more open list rather than a closed list system, but it is important that we have a clear idea of the time scale.
The Home Secretary said that he expected the Bill to be on the statute book by October 1998. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will appreciate that, in 1999, we in Scotland and Wales will also be facing elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. In Scotland, we shall also have all our council elections because every seat is competed for in 1999. There may be a possibility of voter fatigue, but there may also be a possibility of political party fatigue.
It is important that we have a clear time scale to ensure that all the mechanisms are in place; we need to have more than just a vague promise that October 1998 is the deadline—that leaves little time for those of us who are involved in the work of the elections. The pressure on the democratic body politic will be immense over the next 18 months, and I seek further clarification on that.
I now turn to the financing of the elections and the campaigns. We shall come to the money resolution later, but there is to be no debate on it. When I intervened on the Home Secretary, he said that he was part of a listening Government. It is important, in all the regions of England and in Wales and Scotland, where individual campaigns will be run by the parties on behalf of their policies, that we know what the expenditure levels can be.
For example, will Scotland and Wales have separate budgets for the campaigns, with all parties being equal, or will we have to face additional expenditure from Millbank or Smith square on behalf of the Labour and Conservative parties that will be seen as state expenditure? If we are talking about proportionality and equality, the subject of finance in these elections is important. I hope—my party and I shall certainly make representations—that the Government will look seriously at that matter.
My party welcomes the Bill in principle, although—for obvious reasons, given the number of seats in Scotland— we tabled an amendment declining to give it a Second Reading. We think that it is a step forward. Over many years, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru have campaigned on the issue of proportional representation. People say that we have done so because we are minority parties. Existing figures show that my party achieved almost a quarter of the vote at the last general election, but won only one twelfth of the seats in this place.
It is important that all voters should feel that their votes count; they should be able to go into the polling booth in their locality and feel that they are making a determined mark for democracy and for the representation of the beliefs they hold dear.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: This evening, I am faced with a dilemma. I am a democrat; I believe in the right of election. I believe that many systems are sometimes better than the first-past-the-post system, but I do not believe that the system suggested

tonight moves democracy one inch further forward. I say from the outset that I shall not vote against the Bill, but I have already given notice to those in my Whips Office that when the Committee stage of the Bill is taken on the Floor of the House, I propose to table certain amendments.
Why do I take that view? I gave one of my reasons in an earlier intervention. I represent a small town called St. Helens; we have not had an easy time of it, with the loss of glassworks and the subsequent loss of jobs, the closure of our coal mines and the removal of our chemical industries. We have needed help. Where has it come from? It certainly did not come from the Conservative Government. The only help that we had came from Europe. How did we get that help? We went to our Member of the European Parliament—a very fine man called Mr. Wynn. He is from the same party as me, and he has been a very good MEP. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), will know, because he is in the same Euro-constituency as me, that Mr. Wynn has fought time and again, not just for my metropolitan borough, but for my hon. Friend's.
We knew whom to go to, but what shall we be left with in future? We shall be left with a regional list that will cover 10 seats. I have looked at the voting figures. I know a little about voting: I have stood in national and local elections since the 1970s and I have participated in a few, some of which I have won. In fact, I have won most of them and lost only one in 1979. In all those years, when I went to seek election, I went to an elector; I went on behalf of myself and my party and I was either accepted or rejected. In 1999, on behalf of whom shall I go to the elector? Do I go to him on behalf of the first on my party list? What happens if I find a good Member at the top of the party list and, at the bottom of the list, I find a chap or a lass who is superb and who I know, from experience, will make a jolly good representative for my area? How do I ensure that he or she gets elected? How do I fight? We have been given one solution tonight, but there is a much simpler and easier way: the Euro-seats exist.
I shall explain another of my worries. I represent a small town. To the east is a rather large city called Manchester and an equally large city called Salford. To the west is Liverpool and to the north there is farmland with different interests. Who will represent me? Will it be someone with the interests of the major conurbations at heart? Whom do I go to? Whom do my electorate go to— my small companies, unions, various groupings, Churches and other bodies? We are suggesting that they will have to go to a representative who may not even be of the same political persuasion—that frequently happens now. Conservatives come to me in respect of matters in St. Helens, but at least they know to whom to come.
I warn the House that if we adopt a regional system, the first port of call for anyone with a Euro-problem will be the local Member of Parliament. We must not kid ourselves. At present, I know exactly where to shift the problem so that it will be dealt with properly and efficiently, but if we adopt the new system, which one of the area MEPs should I contact?
The constituencies exist. Should we have a first-past-the-post system? Our election manifesto states that there will be proportional representation for the European elections. I thought long and hard about that— for Westminster, I have always been in favour of first past


the post. I know that the Westminster first-past-the-post system has been described as arrogant, but it leaves us fighting for every vote—it does not matter if someone has a safe seat. Safe seats can suddenly become unsafe, as the Conservative party knows only too well. My own Labour party knew that only too well some 14 years ago, when even my seat teetered on the brink of marginality. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State also knows the problems that we encountered when we were despised by the electorate, which we were—let us not kid ourselves about that.
The essence of democracy is serving the electorate, and that cannot be done from the extremes of left or right. That is a lesson that I hope all of us in the House have now learnt.
There is no arrogance in the first-past-the-post system, but I agree that it is not the fairest. I have looked long and hard at the systems that exist in New Zealand, on the continent and in the land of my birth, Ireland. The system there, with multi-Member constituencies, is interesting, but I can see problems with that.
It would be fairest to say to an elector, "You have a choice. You choose which candidate you want. If you can't have him or her, choose the next one—your second choice, your third choice and your fourth choice. If you don't want to use those choices, it is a matter for you." I regret to have to admit, and I admit when I am wrong, that that system—the alternative vote system—would reflect much more broadly the wishes of the area.
Such a system, applied to single-Member constituencies, would produce a far fairer result, and would achieve the object of the exercise of ensuring the representation of the area by someone on behalf of the area.
To those who say to me that the constituencies are too big, I say, "Try Merseyside area. Try Cheshire. Try the rural parts. Try Manchester." My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who was formerly leader of Manchester council, used his MEP time and again to the benefit of the city of Manchester. That has been proved to work.
Everyone says that the constituencies are very big. "Ever been to America?" say I to the critic. "Ever seen the congressional districts? Not very small, are they? However, they have one representative. Try the Senate. The areas represented are whole states. Admittedly, they may have two or sometimes three Senators, but the system works."
When one looks across the world, one sees large tracts of land that are represented by a single person, who reflects the interests and represents the nature of the area.
The one great check and balance is that where there is single representation for an area, whatever size it might be, there will ultimately be accountability. Regardless of party, if the person fails to represent the area, as we have all seen in this place, out he goes. After all, politics is not made for politicians. Politics is about representing the interests of the single elector.
Therefore I urge the House, while accepting the Second Reading of the Bill, to bear it in mind that some of us have our own view about what democracy means, and about how we should select and elect the person to represent our town, village or country area in the Parliament of Europe.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). The only difference between us is that I shall vote against the Bill, and he will not, but our views are very similar.
The Bill is small—six clauses, four schedules and 11 pages. Despite that fact, it is a Bill of far-reaching significance. It is therefore not surprising that from both sides of the House, considerable anxiety has been expressed about it. There is a sense on both sides of the House that the Bill strikes at the accountability that elected representatives ought to have to those whom they represent, and a feeling, too, that it gives far too much power to the party machine.
I shall amplify those points in a moment, but against that background, I make two preliminary remarks. First, it is a great pity that there has been no widespread consultation about the contents of the Bill. It is true that the Plant committee established it, but the Plant committee was created by the Labour party and was part of the Labour party. There has been no Green Paper, no White Paper and no public debate.
On a matter of great constitutional significance, that is lamentable. It is lamentable, too, when one considers that the Labour Government purport to be a listening Government. That is what the Home Secretary said in his speech, but the plain fact is that the Bill has been introduced without any substantial prior consultation and without any pressing need, now or at all.
Secondly, it is worth reminding ourselves that the noble Lord Williams of Mostyn said on 11 June that he had no plans this Session to introduce such a Bill. That changed, but it makes the point that there is ample time to consult, and that there is no pressing need at this time. Indeed, there is no pressing need at all. While it is true that the European institutions of various kinds have expressed a view in favour of harmonisation, there is no requirement for us to implement that.
I personally would object to harmonisation in this field. Why should we harmonise? If subsidiarity is to have any real meaning, surely we should determine our own electoral methods. We are under no existing requirement to introduce the Bill. It was hastily put into the programme, and introduced without prior consultation and without any requirement. That is evidence of the arrogance of a Government with an overweening majority.
The Bill greatly confuses the electoral methods that we have in this country. It provides for a list system. The first-past-the-post system operates for Westminster. The single transferable system is used in Northern Ireland. There are to be devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales, where there will be an additional member system, or something like it. Which system will be adopted for the election of a mayor for London? I understand that it will probably be the second ballot.
Five or six different electoral systems will be in operation. That diversity of electoral systems is unlikely to reinforce the confidence of electors or encourage them to vote. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said on that point.
On the detail of the Bill, I have no objection to proportional representation as a means of electing the European Parliament. For that matter, I have no objection


to PR as a means of electing the second Chamber, should ever we be required to do that. My objection is not to PR as such, for those assemblies. I would die in a ditch in the case of Westminster, and I may be called upon to do so, because I deeply suspect that the Labour Government will ask us to have PR for Westminster. I will die in a ditch for that.
For the European Parliament and for the second Chamber, there could be a PR system that retains the constituency base. The alternative vote system, the single transferable vote system, the additional member vote system and the second ballot system all, to some degree, retain a constituency member base, although it might be a multi-member base. The one system that inevitably involves the destruction of at least small constituencies is the one proposed by the Labour Government.
Let us focus, first, on the destruction of the constituency base, and secondly, on the power given to the political parties. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South argued strongly the case for retaining the constituency base for electing Members of the European Parliament. Doing away with the constituency base would disadvantage the represented, the representatives and the body politic. I shall give one example in respect of each category.
The represented need to know to whom to turn—the hon. Member for St. Helens, South made that point graphically. Under the list system, the people will have no idea to whom to turn. The representatives need to have the authority and the status that come from direct election, otherwise, in the end, they are but nonentities and creatures on a list. All Members of Parliament in this place represent people who know of us and who have chosen us. We have the status of representatives who speak for our areas. The list system does not permit that.
As to the body politic, what damages accountability and makes it difficult for people to become engaged in a process will also damage democracy. A system that does not have accountability between the representative and the represented and that gives undue power to the party machine—which means that, ultimately, the representatives stand for nothing—is not likely to be regarded with respect by the electorate. If people regard institutions with contempt, they will not vote in elections.
Another issue is the power of the party. Let us be absolutely clear: the candidates will be chosen not by constituency associations, but by the party machine. I ask myself and the House, rhetorically, what kind of person will be chosen by the party machine. I can tell the House that the party will choose the safe pair of hands—the conformist who will not rock the boat. It would not choose someone like my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who has always been a thorn in the side of the party, which, in many ways, is a very good thing. We shall see represented on the candidates' list not broad churches but political hacks. If the representatives do not start life as political hacks, they will surely end up that way, because their only chance of re-election will be to please the party machine.

Mr. Gill: I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider another proposition. A great strength of the British democratic system is that Members of Parliament are not dependent upon their party, but are sustained by the people who elect them. My right hon. and learned

Friend will be aware of the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of the party whip from me and several other colleagues which, under the party list system, would have been the end of our careers. However, we were sustained by our constituents. The great strength of the British democratic system is that there is belt and braces to ensure that the people's voice is heard.

Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend's point. I do not conceal from the House the fact that he and I have had the most appalling rows; we disagree quite a lot. However, I believe that parties need diversity, and I welcome broad churches. Diversity brings independence and independence brings quality—or, to put it differently, if we remove diversity and independence, we shall not attract quality. People will not offer themselves as party candidates if they will be under the thumb of the party bosses, on whichever side. It is disruptive.

Mr. Drew: I am confused by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. It is surely for the parties to choose the most democratic method of selection. The Labour party believes in exhaustive ballots: we ballot for the national executive committee and for parliamentary candidates. Who is to say that the Labour party will not decide to conduct regional ballots in order to choose its candidates? That is the proper democratic method, and it is far better than some of the stitched-up processes that existed in the past.

Mr. Hogg: That may or may not be so, but we are discussing the Bill. The Bill severs the territorial connection between the elected representative and those whom he or she represents. What is more, it gives absolute power to the party machine as to the choice of candidate. It may be that parties will choose to temper that absolutism through some system that they dream up. However, I have been in the Whips Office and I know that elected representative bodies want a safe pair of hands who will do what he or she is told. I am sure that the Government Whip agrees: the parties want Members of the European Parliament who will do what they are told. However, the electorate do not want that because it undermines democracy fundamentally.
Why has the Labour party produced a Bill that is so obviously untenable? My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) suggested one reason: there has been a deal. Most Liberal Democrats have gone home, but that is one explanation. There are two other possible reasons. The first is that the Labour party knows that it will be humiliated in the 1999 election under the first-past-the-post system, and it can temper that result through proportional representation based on the single transferable vote. It can do a great deal more to reduce that potential humiliation through the list system. That is gerrymandering.
What is the other reason for the Bill? The Government are afraid of their own party. Labour is afraid of those who would select its candidates: its voluntary party. It is also afraid of its prospective candidates, so the party bosses will choose them. Labour is afraid of the people who would be returned, so it has created a system that ensures that Members of the European Parliament will be firmly under the thumb. The truth is that the Bill is an affront to democracy. If the House were truly concerned about democracy—we are; the Government are not—the Bill would be rejected.

Mr. David Lock: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and his flights of fancy. If we strip away the layers of his argument, we find the cri de coeur of an unreconstructed Whip who sees the opportunity of controlling the system and having no democracy in his own party. He knows perfectly well that, unlike other political parties, the Conservatives would impose regional candidates if they were given that opportunity. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, it will not be up to the associations or the Members. We shall see a rerun of the Conservative leadership election in which the Leader of the Opposition was elected by a mere 169 votes—he has even less support now, as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) no longer sits with the Opposition.

Mr. George Howarth: He had the whip withdrawn.

Mr. Lock: That was another act of an unreconstructed Whip. Some of us have slightly more faith in the structure of our parties and the way in which they will exercise their power and responsibilities under the Bill.
Much has been said today about the identification of MEPs with their constituencies. I must disagree with those who suggest that, when MEPs walk down the average high street, they are instantly assailed with concerns about 5b status, European grants and the like. The truth is that there is limited identification between the 500,000 people in a Euro-constituency and the MEP, however hard he works, and I come from a region with an exceptionally hard-working and effective MEP. I am sure that, despite all his hard work, he would be the first person to agree with me.
I have a column in my local newspaper through which I regularly communicate with my electors. Every time I say anything remotely controversial, I receive a lot of mail in response. So there is communication. The MEP does not have and cannot have that. I pick up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who explained that an MEP focuses mainly on working with institutions, businesses and schools.
There is nothing wrong with having a panel of MEPs who represent a region. That provides the answer to the question that hon. Members raised about how electors get rid of an MEP. At present, with the first-past-the-post system, it is extremely difficult, but if electors have several MEPs and one is particularly knowledgeable on grants, that is the MEP to whom electors can go to ask about grants. If they have a problem in the agricultural sector and an MEP within their list is particularly knowledgeable about agriculture, he or she will be their port of call.
A Member of Parliament has to be a jack of all trades, and that is not a reflection on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We have to deal with everything. Under the proposed system, MEPs will have the opportunity to provide a better and more specialised service for constituents in a larger constituency, so the criticism levelled against it does not bear proper analysis.
There is a further reason why the system is to be preferred. The first-past-the-post system forces all parties to target their resources on that small group of marginal seats where control is likely to change, as happened at the

general election. In some places, votes do not count. Under the proposed system, the vote will count everywhere. That is a considerable improvement on the present system.
It is a feature of British political life that support for proportional representation tends to rise and fall in inverse proportion to a party's strength. The more seats a party has in the House of Commons, the more converts it has to the first-past-the-post system. On that basis, and following the results in Winchester and Beckenham, I expect many Conservative Members to convert to proportional representation. However, I suspect that they have not quite grasped the position that they are in.
The Bill makes a considerable stride forward in one particular respect. It provides for the first time for the registration of political parties. Political parties are powerful creatures in our democratic society and they are largely unregulated. It is one of the ironies of the previous Government that they provided for excessive regulation of trade unions but for no regulation whatever of political parties. The political party regulation system, which, under the Representation of the People Act 1983, is largely ignored, is more like a system designed to regulate a tennis club than a system to regulate a vital organ of democracy. The time has come to recognise the position of political parties within our legal and democratic structure.
That will get rid of the scandal whereby if a "Literal Democrat" candidate runs and confuses the electorate, there is no remedy because there is no legal registration of political parties, and whereby, at the last election, Madam Speaker, not being opposed by any of the major parties— as is traditional—was faced by a "new Labour" candidate and could do nothing about it. The registration of political parties to provide clear descriptions will go some way towards alleviating that problem.
I welcome the cap on funding. However, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to examine one aspect in particular. At present, funding is triggered when the election is called or when a party begins a campaign. In reality, one way or another, campaigns are fought for many months before the election formally begins. A cap on party funding nationally will have no effect if it can be sidestepped in the first six months of a campaign. All the posters, whether paid for by the party or by tobacco companies, have to be taken into account if the cap is to be meaningful, and if the limit is to be observed properly and effectively.
Subject to that small point, I strongly welcome the Bill, through which the representation of our MEPs will reflect far better the wishes of the electorate, who vote for parties in the main, not for individuals, and who are entitled to vote on a party's manifesto and to expect their views and votes to count, wherever they happen to be.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: When I hear the twaddle that has been advanced, I think that I must be an unreconstructed, old-fashioned Member of Parliament. Where does the notion that there is an imperative to introduce the Bill come from? I listened carefully to the Home Secretary, who bedazzled me with his knowledge of Dutch pronunciation and all manner of contrived and other systems. He advanced the proposition that the Bill was based on a manifesto commitment, and I


note that one or two Labour Members agree that the Labour party manifesto mentioned the introduction of proportional representation for European elections. However, the manifesto did not talk about a closed list.
I am genuinely bemused by the Labour party's constitutional change programme—which is fundamental to its concept of the modernisation of Britain—because its approach is essentially piecemeal. The approach for Scotland is different from that for Wales and for London. No Bill is ever in front of anyone and there are no regulations; it is all up in the air.
Let us consider what a manifesto commitment amounts to. I have to confess—and I have done so for many years—that I have not always read the Conservative manifesto. It confuses me and I would not want to confuse the electorate with all its aspirations and promises. I suspect that my approach to a manifesto is not so different from that of most hon. Members. Few could attest to the contents of their party's manifesto, or pass even an O-level on its contents.
Central to the Welsh Labour party's manifesto was a commitment to have a devolved assembly—it was the primary argument in the general election—but to show us that this was the will of the people, the Government invoked a referendum. And what was the resounding result? Seventy-five per cent. did not support the proposals. The Government's response was, "We have had a victory." Notwithstanding the fact that 25 per cent. voted for, 25 per cent. against and 50 per cent. did not vote, the Government said that it was an endorsement of their manifesto commitment. It is laughable—risible.
The most profound objectors and commentators were Labour Welsh Members. They were harried and hounded by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who reminded them all the time of their election commitment. It does not matter a row of beans. In the end, we shall throw the straws into the air and unsettle something that has been pretty settled and has worked to the benefit of our country. Wales contributed to the great Labour victory of 1945 and the huge social change that commanded our nation for nearly 30 years thereafter.
We now move to the Government's extraordinary proposal. I join my hon. Friends and Labour Members who have the greatest reservation about the profound change that the new Labour Government are setting in motion. Much has been made of the fact that the Home Secretary himself does not really have his heart in it. I am unable to comment on that, but I can well understand why that might be the case.
The Government's proposal would break something that I consider extremely important. One of the commanding facts of our constitutional arrangements throughout British history—even in the post-war era—is the association and identification of an individual with an area and the electorate within it. First and foremost we are representatives not of a party machine but of an area.
It used to be said—and Churchill invoked it to save his own skin before the second world war when Conservative central office was trying to unseat him for being awkward and difficult—that the duties of a Member of Parliament were first to his country, second to his constituency and third to his party. The Bill reverses all that. Now, the first duty of a Member of Parliament is to his party. I hear hon. Members asking, "But isn't that the reality of the world?" The world may sometimes have rotated on its

axis but the odd Member—the individual supporting a cause and standing against the great guns of his party— remains extremely important.
Therefore, the question, "How do we get rid of a Member?" is extremely pertinent. The Government can well advise us on that subject as they did so spectacularly well at the general election.
Identifying an individual and what he stands for—or fails to stand for—has always been a deep and important part of our process. Given the huge geographical regions proposed in the Bill, I wonder how I can go and see my MEP. According to the Bill, my region—the West Midlands—comprises the counties of Herefordshire, Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, Shropshire, Warwickshire, West Midlands, The Wrekin and Worcestershire. There are eight counties and there will be eight MEPs. Where can I meet them? The first relationship for a representative is the ability to meet, argue and try to impress his constituents. I do not know where I could possibly meet the MEPs representing my area.
I know the gibes I have made about the shortcomings of MEPs in my own area. We hardly ever see them, but I accept that it may well not be their fault. The very nature of the area makes it extremely difficult for them to serve their 500,000 potential electors. It is not impossible, but it may be difficult.
Under the proposed arrangement, who will be responsible? Whom do I lobby and where in that vast range of counties do I go as a constituent and as a citizen to lobby my MEP? I find it an extraordinary arrangement. What happens about the individual election address? At every national election—including European elections—every candidate makes a personal address that identifies his nature and character and why one should vote for him. Under the new arrangement, that is absolutely meaningless.
How does one encourage the sensitivities and the reflections that develop during a Parliament? How we start on day one is not always how we end up on the last day of our term of office. Experience, circumstances and other factors may change our approach, yet I do not know who the anonymous people are who are elected by a list.
I raised another question that was not really answered. Every right hon. and hon. Member, and all those elected to represent us in the European Parliament, will have to have a position on the single currency. It is an important issue that will confront all parties. There are profound reservations within the Labour party about what amounts to a change in British democracy. Although the Liberal Democrats are 100 per cent. for everything, the polls tell us that the overwhelming majority of their supporters are against a single currency. Their manifesto will doubtless proclaim the merits of a single currency, but what about the hearts and judgments of the millions of people who believe in the Labour party yet have reservations and doubts about the single currency? What about the millions of Conservatives who do or do not believe in the merits of a single currency? In the June 1999 European election, how will they make a choice under the closed list system?
I welcome the Home Secretary's generosity in saying that he will consider suggestions. However, my experience of the parliamentary system is that a Minister's good intentions are often overcome by the rigours and demands of the timetable and programme of the House and the other Departments' need for legislative time.
I make a plea to the huge majority who support the Government. We are not all nodding donkeys; we reflect on these matters. In the end, the expression of our country and our liberty has been through the individuals who represent us—often against the tides of opinion in their own parties. In the Labour party it used to be almost a mark of honour to have the whip withdrawn. One of the former leaders of the Labour party suffered that indignity. The father of the national health service also had the whip withdrawn. Are the souls and the characters that moulded our political life to be denied representation in an anonymous list system covering, in my area, all those counties—unreachable and inaccessible?
I was schooled in part in Italy where I did postgraduate work. One of the features of the Italian political system that has marched with me all the years of my life has been the attention to impossible party lists, which were the doing down of a great country for many years. The people of Italy could never get to grips with the corruption, the back-room dealing and the favouritism.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) all had the whip withdrawn as those then in charge of the party could not weigh up the seriousness and earnestness that huge numbers of Conservatives—and not only Conservatives—felt about the nature of the surrender of our democracy in the advancement of European treaties.

Mr. David Watts: Might some of the hon. Gentleman's worries be dispersed by the fact that a new system could give every member of the Conservative party and every member of the Labour party a voice in the selection process for the list? Would that alleviate the problem? Although the hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, it can be addressed by the way in which the system is put together.

Mr. Shepherd: Yes, I am sure that we can contrive other ways of doing things. I have always believed that anyone standing for election must be accessible. I am not knocking improvements on the current system; I am trying to address the Bill which, in my view, is contrary to our traditions and our democracy and against the interests of the people of these islands.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: I very much enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and appreciate his enlightening the House on how Conservative Back Benchers deal with their manifestos, especially their manifesto commitments. His comments went some way towards explaining how, in the previous Government, Conservative Members managed to break so many of their commitments without a twinge of conscience. We now know that it was just plain ignorance.
It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has left the Chamber. He said that, in all his time as a Minister, he never signed a letter with the word "appropriate" in it. As the leader of a local authority for a couple of years, during which time he was the Minister with responsibility for local government,

I do not remember ever once in his letters seeing the word "appropriate". It was always something along the lines of, "After careful consideration, the answer is no." As the current Minister with responsibility for local government is pursuing the same policy, however, I shall not pursue that argument.
I welcome this debate. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said that a lot of twaddle was spoken in it, but I do not think that that is true. It never ceases to amaze me how, in our debates, hon. Members start with the same facts but reach different conclusions, but surely that is the nature of the democratic beast. I have not thought that any of the speeches in this debate were twaddle, and I found all of them illuminating.
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being in the Chamber for the start of the debate. I watched my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the monitor in my office and welcomed what he said. For what it is worth, I believe that it is time that we began to modernise the British constitution. Traditions are all well and good, and their history is important, but tradition by itself is no reason to stick with an electoral system. If we are to modernise Britain and our role in the wider world, surely electoral reform of some of our institutions must have a part to play.
This is not the first time that a Labour Government have tried to implement electoral reform and proportional representation for the European elections. Some hon. Members may have been Members of Parliament when the previous Labour Government tried to do so. Even in those days when there were official Lib-Lab pacts, we failed in our attempt to implement reform, because a coalition of the Conservative party and dissident Labour Back Benchers managed to destroy it. In these more enlightened times, however, in which we have a much smaller Conservative party and Labour Back-Bench dissidents are virtually unheard of, and certainly unheard, it is unlikely that reform will be wrecked.
The European elections give us the ideal opportunity to try to modernise the constitution and to examine different systems and ways of improving democracy.

Mr. Tim Loughton: In this great "spirit of modernity"—that grotesque new phrase—how can the hon. Gentleman gel modernisation with the Bill's proposals, which will give the British electorate less choice? They would no longer have a choice of candidate; they would have purely a choice of party and an approved party list, devised by some anonymous party machine. How is that modernising the electoral process?

Mr. Cawsey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention and, as I develop my argument, I will deal with that point. I hope that he will stay in the Chamber to listen to it, as I am sure he will think that it is deeply persuasive.
The Home Secretary made the point that reform will give us a system that is similar to that used by most countries that elect Members of the European Parliament. Surely such convergence would in itself be an extension of democracy. I believe that MEPs across Europe should be elected by a common system. As that matter is neither the subject of this debate nor something that we can control, I will not develop it.
European constituencies, which are extremely large, have difficulties in links between MEPs and electors. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who has left the Chamber also—I seem to have an effect on people; it is like a Le Mans start to the exit when I speak—spoke about the difficulty of getting rid of unpopular MEPs. I do not know whether that was a reference to the Conservative party. The difficulty with getting rid of unpopular MEPs in European elections, however, lies in the links in the electoral system.
It would be welcome if many electors knew who their MEP was, let alone formed a conclusion on whether their MEPs are worthy of being popular or unpopular. I make no criticism of MEPs, some of whom are very good friends of mine and some of whom helped me to get elected. I do not criticise them as individuals—although we now know that they are looking forward to extremely large pay increases. As the advertisement says, "I'm not bitter."
The size of constituencies makes it difficult to maintain the constituency link that hon. Members know and love. It is that lack of a local link, combined with first past the post that makes current arrangements so unacceptable, despite the fact that currently there is no list system and there are constituencies. Current arrangements provide a major disincentive for the electorate to vote. Electors often do not know for whom they are voting, and they are stuck with a first-past-the-post system. The results are often predetermined, irrespective of how voters cast their ballot. Turnouts in European elections have reflected those disincentives.
A few years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan)—who, the House will not be surprised to hear, is not in the Chamber—was my candidate for the York Euro-seat. I remember seeing him speak at a public meeting, when he said that the public perception of an MEP was someone who was elected but was not seen again for five years, by which time he or she was five stones heavier. I hasten to say—in case any MEPs are listening—that those were his words, not mine. Nevertheless, he gave some credence to the difficulties of keeping MEPs accountable.
Whatever the election, electors often need little incentive to stay away from the polls. They need only a small disincentive and they will stay away. Recently in Beckenham, a combination of formula one and formula Hague made most people decide to stay at home rather than to cast a ballot. We have to do all that we can to encourage people to cast a vote and to make them believe that their vote will lead to something.
Local government has the closest constituency link of all. Often those constituencies, depending on the type of council, consist of only a couple of thousand people. I served on a local authority for eight years, and I am proud of the two years that I served as its leader. In the three local government elections that I faced, however, the highest—not the lowest—turnout was 36 per cent. Despite all my personal appeal and charm and constituency work, that was the turnout—[Interruption.]
My vibrator is going off. Obviously I am too off message at this point. I should have a quick look to see what I am supposed to be saying. It says, "Carry on"; that is okay. It is my mother watching us on cable television.
Despite all the work that others and I put into doing very hard constituency work in a very small constituency, where many electors knew who we were, it did not lead to participation or to good democracy. Why? Because too many seats were perceived to be safe for one party or the other, and that was a deterrent to voting and to participating in the political process.
In my glorious past, I was an executive member of the Scunthorpe Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"] Yes, heady days. I remember going to a selection meeting for a candidate for Scunthorpe borough council. The seat was very safe for Labour and the quorum of members required to choose a candidate was five. Two—a husband and wife—turned up and, under the rules, we added three executive members to make the meeting quorate. The three executive members immediately asked the two members whom they wanted. They said, "John's doing all right; we'll stick with him." John was selected as the candidate, but the seat was so safe that the Conservatives and the Liberals—and even the Monster Raving Loony party—did not bother putting up a candidate and it was a walkover.[Interruption.]I cannot believe it, but I am vibrating again—I must be seriously off message now. In safe seats, under the first-past-the-post system, there is a major disincentive for people to cast their votes, because they know that they make little difference.

Mr. Loughton: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's discourse, but on that logic why was the turnout in seats such as Kensington and Chelsea and Huntingdon as high as it was in more marginal seats in the general election? What is so different in a Westminster election from a European election? Is the hon. Gentleman resigned to the fact that being a Member of the European Parliament is a complete waste of time because of the lack of connection to the electorate whom one is supposed to represent? If that is so, Members of the European Parliament can be as anonymous, detached and unmotivated as they choose.

Mr. Cawsey: I covered one of those points earlier when I mentioned the difficulties that Members of the European Parliament face and the sheer impossibility of getting feedback from the electorate. People in European elections vote on party lines, certainly more so than in local elections, because they do not know enough about the candidates or the constituency, which often has little relevance to them.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) asks why the turnout is lower in local government elections than in general elections. It is because local government seats are often very safe, and because the electorate perceive that local government is overcentralised. They think that it does not matter whom they elect because all the decisions are taken in Westminster and, under capping, local politicians have to impose Government policy.
I led North Lincolnshire council for two years after it was formed recently. The budgets and capping regime imposed by the previous Government were so precise that both the Conservative and Labour parties had the same budget, not because we suddenly agreed on policy but because there was no room for manoeuvre.
People do not vote if their votes do not make a difference, which they often do not in local government elections or in European elections; but, by gum, their


votes made a difference on 1 May, because the Government changed hands. That is why turnouts were higher in May than for local government elections and for European elections.

Mr. Loughton: On that logic, the hon. Gentleman appears to have resigned himself to the fact that people will not vote in European elections because their votes will not make any difference. The European Parliament and the Commission will do what they like and impose their policies on our people. That is what he is saying. Is he in favour of that?

Mr. Cawsey: No, I am not in favour of that and it is not what I am saying. What will make people vote is the belief that their vote counts. Too many people in too many constituencies—especially European constituencies—feel that their vote counts for nothing. Our aim must be to increase participation and thus to increase democracy.

Mr. Drew: One of the strongest arguments in favour of a regional list system, to which I alluded earlier, is the need to create a regional identity. If regional identities are created, people will vote and take an interest in whom they are electing. Two issues already have a regional dimension—agriculture and fishing—and I can think of no better examples for the south-west, which is my part of the world. Another idea would be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must be brief.

Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that concentration on such issues would increase turnout?

Mr. Cawsey: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The argument that the electoral arrangements in this country are beyond criticism is beyond belief and stunningly complacent. We should consider reforms that would encourage participation and make votes count, because increased participation improves democracy. A more open list would give the maximum incentive to participation at the next European elections. I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Robert Syms: We have heard some good contributions from hon. Members on both sides in this important debate. There will be many more debates on electoral reform. The next few years will be a psephologist's dream. Many of those wrote obscure books many years ago will make a fortune selling books on various electoral systems.
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I had the honour of fighting Walsall, North in 1992, which is the constituency next to his. I can honestly say that he is regarded with respect and irritation by people in his area, because he is an independent-minded Member of Parliament. He is a perfect example of a party member who represents his constituency well in the Chamber. He is not the sort who would naturally be put on a party list. I mean that as a compliment. Any Parliament ought to have a broad range of opinion.
The first-past-the-post system has evolved over the past 150 years. It has suited us well because it suits the temperament of the British people. It is simple, it is quick, it delivers effective democratic rule and, most important, it has a strong constituency link. At every selection committee, the first question that a candidate is asked is whether he or she will live in the constituency. People put a high premium on having their Member of Parliament as part of the community.
In many respects, first past the post is the most accountable system. Every time we vote, we are accountable. Every time we write a letter to a constituent, we are accountable. If we are not here, we are accountable. If we cannot go to the annual general meeting of the local Women's Institute this year, we know that we must go next year because people hold us to account. We are meant to represent our constituencies and we are meant to be there. That is a tremendous strength of our system.
The Bill proposes a proportional representation closed list system. Despite what the Home Secretary said earlier about looking at other options, that is what is proposed. That will give electors no choice but to pick a political party—or an independent. They can exercise no judgment about whether the first, second, third or fourth candidate on a list has particular merits. That is bad for democracy. As has been said earlier, the first on the list could go on holiday to the Caribbean and have a lovely time while the No. 3 was working extremely hard to ensure that he or she was just above the line to be elected for that region.
The Home Secretary has said that the size of European parliamentary seats provides a stronger argument for moving away from first past the post, but we are creating such vast regions that there will be no strong link between MEPs and their electors. Current MEPs are all linked to towns, cities or counties.
Most of us have certain loyalties. We have loyalties to our country and sometimes to our county or the borough that we grew up in or represent. Those links are important. Most MEPs have strong links with their local authorities because, irrespective of their political character, those authorities will regularly contact their MEP for information, advice and support. As a Member of this Parliament, it is useful for me to know who represents Dorset and East Devon in the European Parliament. The seven or eight Members of Parliament in that area know him. That is what accountability is about.
Political parties have never played a predominant role in the way in which we have organised our affairs. Only in 1969, under the Representation of the People Act, when the voting age was reduced to 18, did we put the political labels on ballot papers for both local and national elections. The suggested system will put political parties directly into the political process as never before.
Moreover, that would lead to bad practices. We all represent our constituencies, as Members of the European Parliament do. People go to their representatives with their problems, whether they voted Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative, or even if they did not vote at all. In my surgery I find people of all political persuasions, so I have to see the problems that people from all walks of life have.
If a region has two or three Conservative Members, plus some Labour, some Liberal Democrat and an independent, people with problems will go to the


representative who shares their political point of view. That is not necessarily progress, and is not the best way of improving political representation.
There is also an important argument concerning the size of regions. Inevitably, however we divide the vote, the larger the region the more likely a minor party is to achieve representation. If there are 10 or 11 Members and the minor party crosses a threshold of 9 or 10 per cent., it will get representation. If there are three or four Members, minor parties will need 20 or 25 per cent. of the vote to achieve representation.
It would be fairer if we picked an electoral system in which every constituency was the same size. The differential sizes of regions will mean that more independents will stand in some than in others. If a gentleman with deep pockets wants to stand for the European Parliament, he will inevitably go to the South East region, because the threshold for being elected will be far better there than in Wales or the North East, for example.
That will lead to unfairness within the system. In the North West and the South East, we shall find more odd bods and a greater range of candidates, simply because the sizes of those regions will mean that such people's chances of election are far better. Meanwhile, life for candidates from the major parties standing in Wales or the North East will be relatively easy.
The Irish experience in the middle part of this century was that under the single transferable vote system, with large constituencies of nine to 12 Members, it was almost impossible to form a Government without a mass coalition of three or four parties. Ireland reduced the size of the constituencies so that each had only three to five Members, because the arithmetic then gave the prospect of getting much nearer to a majority in the Dail. De Valera's party, which was the largest, could command an overall majority on occasions, because the size of the areas had been reduced.
I hope that the Government will consider seriously the size of the regions that they propose. It would be beneficial if some of the larger regions were split in two, to keep at least some link with the locality, and to diminish the size of the constituencies.
The general question of by-elections has not been much raised, although the Home Secretary talked about by-elections in certain circumstances. No doubt, under the STV system in Northern Ireland there would have to be a by-election. In regions, there would be a by-election unless the place could be filled through the list, and certainly if it was an independent who had happened to die.
I know that we are going into new territory here, but I believe that that is an important issue. Under the Bill, regulations on such matters, although laid before the House, would not be debated. If we are to move towards a new system, we need to set out clear ground rules governing when a by-election would and would not be called.
At present, under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, the only discretion that the Government have is to set the date of a by-election. Under the existing system, that is all that they need. However, after the proposed changes there may be some discretion about whether there is to be a by-election at all. For example, whether Scotland has to turn out for a by-election on a particular Thursday—under the first-past-the-post system,

presumably, if there is only one vacancy—may depend on the good will of a particular Home Secretary. That would be wrong.
This is a bad Bill and sets a bad precedent. I do not agree with the hon. Members who have said that we should have different electoral systems for different tiers of Government. We should have some regard to the electors, who have to turn out and get to know which system they have to exercise at the ballot box. We should also have some regard for the returning officers. We are sentencing them to many days in motels being lectured on how the new system will work, so that individuals can operate the various different systems that we propose. It would be far simpler to keep the first-past-the-post system.
The Government are proposing to spend some £4 million on training, but it has been reported in the press that perhaps £20 million might have to be spent on advertising to inform people how to operate the new system. The real strength of the first-past-the-post system is its simplicity and its link with the MEP. We are moving from that down a slippery slope towards worse representation.

Mr. David Heath: Electoral reform and changes to the voting system can sometimes be an acquired taste, and I agree with the Home Secretary that it is not the prime topic of conversation in Kingsbury Episcopi or in his constituency. Despite that, we have had a largely well-informed debate this evening. The Home Secretary was almost unnervingly flexible, accommodating, understanding and pluralistic—it quite took my breath away to hear the extent to which he was prepared to compromise his initial position to accommodate others. That is a good sign for the future. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) talked about the "Straw compromise". I hope that it will be called the Straw poll, which seems appropriate.
There was a feeling that the tectonic plates of the body politic were moving a little, and that we were seeing signs of the development of a truly modern system. The only problem with that analysis was the response from the Conservative spokesman, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). Some movement in the tectonic plates may have occurred, but the Conservative party still seems stuck in permafrost—it was a Jurassic response to the debate.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire started by saying that the first-past-the-post system could not be described as indefensible, but it is indefensible in the context of European elections. We heard about the constituency link of MEPs, but any genuine link between one individual and the 500,000 electors he or she represents remains to be proven.
We heard how the new system would restrict voter choice, but I am at a loss to understand that argument. If one is presented with a list of possible candidates, rather than a single candidate from a party, there is, by definition, an extension of choice. We heard the argument about whom an individual elector would go to if he had a problem. At the moment, the voter has one option—to go to the one person who represents his European constituency. Under the new system, the voter will have a choice of MEP. One might meet an MEP with greater


empathy with the problems, say, of lone mothers than another. One might meet an expert on agriculture, or an expert on industry. The voter will have increased choice.
We heard a comprehensive rubbishing of the region system. I find it difficult to reconcile that with the fact that the Conservative party set up those regions. The Conservative Government set up the Government office for the south-west—indeed, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was once the Minister responsible. We used to enjoy the occasions when he trundled along the A303 and the M5 and down our country lanes to find out what was going on in the south-west.
The most astonishing element of the Conservative argument was the patronising assumption that the voter would not be able to understand the change in the system. Never mind that every other voter in Europe can understand a different system; or that voters in Northern Ireland can do so. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the situation in Northern Ireland, and he signally failed to answer. I believe that what is good for every other citizen of the European Union may perhaps have something to commend it to citizens of the United Kingdom.
We heard a level-headed argument from the hon. Member for Stroud. He said a lot of the things that I wanted to say, which is not surprising as he comes from a similar constituency.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) spoke of a distortion that had taken place in the European parliamentary groups as a result of the present system—of the fact that those groups fluctuated massively in terms of strength because of the first-past-the-post system in the United Kingdom. He could have gone on to say that the representation of the United Kingdom within those European parliamentary groups also fluctuates massively on exactly the same basis. That means that the United Kingdom is often under-represented in the Socialist group—or the Conservative group, or the European Liberals, Democrats and Reformers group—in the European Parliament.
I appreciate that to be too interested in, and to express too great a knowledge of, different electoral systems displays an acquaintance with anoraks that it may not be wise to admit to in all circumstances. We could have gone on to discuss the other systems that exist—for example, the Hagenbach-Bischoff and the Hare-Niermayer systems. I feel that, in Committee, we need to return to the argument about the relative merits of the d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague systems.
Earlier, the Home Secretary expressed the view that Sainte-Lague was probably not a Belgian but a Frenchman. He was, in fact, a French mathematician who developed, in 1910, a system that has been used successfully ever since. Opposition Members still believe that that system has something to commend it. We do not think that there is any great difference between an arithmetical progression that goes one, two, three, four, five and one that goes one, three, five, seven, nine. Similarly, one system produces a more proportional result than the other.
I believe that a much more important debate concerns the relative merits of the open and closed systems. I was gratified to hear in the Home Secretary's speech that the closed system was, at the very least, ajar. We shall want to press that. We believe that there is a great deal to commend an open system in which we give the electorate that extra dimension of choice that means that different candidates—not just the candidates selected by the party machine—are presented to the electorate, and can express their view.
I shall end my speech shortly, but I should like to leave one more thought with the Ministers. The Committee of the Regions is not part of the European Parliament, but we have criticised it many times over the years for its lack of democratic ability. At present, it is a quango appointed by the Government, not properly reflective of proportionality. Could it be that this regional system, and this regional proportional representation, might perform the additional duty of providing a template enabling a better representation for the Committee of the Regions, so that local government could be properly reflected in those who were sent to represent the country?
We welcome the thrust of the Bill. We shall debate the detail in Committee. We particularly welcome the cap on party spending on a national basis, which is long overdue. We shall strongly welcome a Bill that will provide for party registration in due course, especially if it prevents the "passing off" that we have seen in recent elections. It should not be necessary for a party to win with a majority of 21,000 in a particular constituency to avoid the distortions that a rogue candidate might introduce into the system.
If the Government can deliver all those things—if the Government can honour their pre-election promises, and the accords that have been worked out between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats—they may be assured of our support in the Lobby tonight, and our support as the Bill proceeds through its legislative stages.

Mr. James Clappison: Although he described my party as Jurassic and coated in permafrost, I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that we have had a largely well-informed debate with some interesting contributions. Among Government Members, we have heard from the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who made an honourable attempt to put the general case for proportional representation, although I do not agree with them.
We also heard from the hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) and, representing the Liberal Democrats, from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.
We have heard some excellent speeches from Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made some telling points. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is the voice of constitutional integrity and he made some important principled observations that should be borne in mind by hon. Members of all parties, especially as—some new Members may not know this— he always says what he thinks, regardless of whether it brings comfort to his own party or to others.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made a powerful speech that chimed in with that of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), in which there were some important points to which the House should pay attention. My right hon. and learned Friend hit the nail on the head when he talked about the rushed way in which the matter had been introduced. We have witnessed some of the consequences of that, beginning with what the Home Secretary said about reconsidering part of the Bill.
I take as a starting point the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). His outstanding speech was made, as the House will recognise, with the benefit of 10 years' experience as a Member of the European Parliament. He was right to talk about his time as an MEP, working with organisations and individuals on a Euro-constituency basis, and about how he was able to identify with those organisations and how much more difficult it would have been for him to provide a service for his constituents if he had been merely a name on a list as part of a much larger region.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon asked whether the proposed system would be better for the electors. The answer is clearly no. There are at least three objections. First, it is more complicated than the present system; secondly, as it stands, and is likely to remain, it will bring about more centralised party control and rob individual MEPs of their independence; and thirdly, it will create much larger constituencies or regions, in which the MEP will inevitably be much more remote from his constituents.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman is talking about complexity for the elector. Under the proposed system, the elector would put a cross on a ballot paper, which is precisely what happens under the current system. How is that more complicated?

Mr. Clappison: For reasons that I shall go into in a moment, the elector is given a simple choice as between parties, but if he tries to understand the new system, heaven help him. I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who said that she would like to take a closer look at the Home Secretary's analysis in the morning; it will bear careful study.
At the moment, I am clear about only three things arising from the Home Secretary's speech. First, Mr. d'Hondt was a Belgian; secondly, Mr. Sainte-Lague was not a Belgian, but if he had been in America he would have been called Webster; and thirdly, in Sweden the divisor would be 1.4.
Following the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, we found out that the Home Secretary was wrong in at least one of those, because Mr. d'Hondt should have been Mynheer d'Hondt, because he was a Fleming. The Home Secretary made various comments about Belgians. I am cautious about following him down the road of national stereotypes. The Home Secretary asked whether we could think of any other famous Belgians. The first name that sprang to my mind was that of Hercule Poirot, although even his powers would have been suffocated if he had tried to understand this system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole has helpfully told me that there are at least two other systems, the Hagenbach-Bischoff system and the Hare-Niermayer

system. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for not mentioning them, although we have been threatened with them in Committee. My hon. Friend also tells me that a Mr. Hare has invented a British system.

Mr. Beith: indicated assent.

Mr. Clappison: The Liberal Democrats know about him; he gave rise to the expression "hare-brained scheme". The proposed system is far from straightforward. The Home Secretary's claim that it has the virtue of simplicity takes a lot of swallowing.
More seriously, there is the problem of closed lists. The Home Secretary made some comments on the course that he will take. He is wise to take that course because, to judge from the debate, there was no support, from any party, for the closed list system. The complete lack of enthusiasm among Labour Members was noticeable. Given that Labour's manifesto committed it to introducing proportional representation for the European elections— it was a bald commitment with no details—why did the Government plump for the closed list system, which can be only a recipe for central party control? That was widely commented on at the time of its unveiling. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary rightly quoted The Times saying that it would be bad for democracy and would put power in the hands of the party machine and take it away from individual MEPs.
We are entitled to an explanation of why the Home Secretary plumped for the proposed system from all the systems that could have been adopted. Can the decision be entirely unconnected with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon described as the ethnic cleansing going on among Labour Members of the European Parliament? Is it a complete coincidence that the Labour party was trying to impose a gag on its MEPs? Labour Members would do well to consider the terms of the gag that was put on their colleagues in the European Parliament by the code of practice, which stated:
Members will support party policy as defined in the Labour party manifesto, including the commitment to proportional representation, and no member shall give statements to the media about any aspect of the party selection procedures, which are a matter for internal party discussion and decision.
That was the gag. So much for open government.
Now the Home Secretary has backed down in the face of all the adverse comments about closed lists and said that he is prepared to put in the Library a document setting out details of the Belgian and Danish systems. We await that with interest. Having taken that step in the face of a lack of support for his proposals, the Minister owes it to the House to say whether we will be allowed a little longer to consider the matter and a fuller debate. If the Government are sincere about consultation and debate, will they allow longer debate, and put off the Committee stage until after Christmas?
I bear in mind the comment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about the way that the Government rushed in. As recently as June, Lord Williams of Mostyn told the Lords that the Government had no plans to bring forward this legislation. [Interruption.] I hear the Whips saying no. Perhaps that is not a good omen for an open debate. In those circumstances, can we have more time for reflection and consultation? That would be in the Government's interest as much as anyone's, given the situation this evening.
The next deficiency of the Bill is the breaking of the link between individual MEPs and constituencies, on which several Labour Members commented. Like the Liberal Democrats, they said that it is difficult for MEPs at present to represent constituencies of 500,000 electors. How much more difficult will it be for them to represent those vast regions, coming as one on a list of Members representing 4 million or 5 million people? The hon. Member for Northfield said that his Euro-constituency of Birmingham, East was too big. Is it more difficult for an MEP to represent Birmingham, East than to represent the West Midlands region, in which 5 million electors reside in Birmingham and the counties of Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Staffordshire, Herefordshire and Shropshire?

Mr. Burden: My point was that I found it somewhat curious that I live in the European constituency of Birmingham, East when my house is in the west of Birmingham. As for the West Midlands, it is acquiring a major identity as a region and it is an economic unit. There is a regional agenda and Europe should be part of that regional agenda.

Mr. Clappison: Does working in such a vast area make it any easier for the MEP to do justice to his constituents?

Mr. Burden: Yes.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman says yes, but I am doubtful. What about the South East region, stretching from Milton Keynes and Oxford down to Kent and Dover? Why stop there? It would make about as much sense to go on to Calais and take in part of northern France. My Hertsmere constituents will find themselves part of the Eastern region, with a total of eight MEPs on a list representing 4 million people. Would it be easier for those MEPs to represent that vast region than for my constituents to remain in the Hertfordshire European constituency, close to Hertfordshire county council, the local health authorities and all the relevant authorities? That is true up and down the country.
As the Bill stands, electors will not even be told whom they are voting for, because there is no authority in the Bill for the names of MEP candidates to appear on the ballot paper, although I notice that they appear in the Government press pack. How can it be possible for independent candidates to attempt the feat of representing whole regions, but not for candidates representing parties? I note that the Liberal Democrat candidates appear in the press pack unzipped—by which I mean that ladies and gentlemen do not appear next to each other—and that independents are represented by David Sutch of the Monster Raving Loony party. I take that to be Screaming Lord Sutch, who will have been deprived of his peerage under the new arrangements—presumably he will be standing for the people's Monster Raving Loony party in future.
To use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, it is a piece of arrogance on the

part of the Government to say that electors do not need a constituency MEP. We are told in the Government's question-and-answer document that:
People do not enjoy, or need, the same close links with their MEP as they do with their MP, so it is possible to elect MEPs on a regional basis.

Mr. Syms: Why not?

Mr. Clappison: That is exactly my question. What have all the Labour MEPs been doing all these years of going around their European constituencies? Are they poor deluded souls who have spent years labouring under the misapprehension that they are doing something useful? All their work has been dismissed by the Government's sleight of hand. We are told:
MEPs' links with their constituents are not as close as those of MPs and the public, for the most part, lacks the detailed knowledge which would enable them to make an informed choice between candidates on a party's list".
What a piece of arrogance on the part of the Government: wiping away the constituency system just like that; wiping away the link between individual MEPs and their constituents; creating a system of remote party placemen miles away from their constituency; and denying electors any opportunity to bring to account MEPs of whom they do not approve.
The system is a bad one. It is complicated. It is a recipe for centralised party control. It breaks down the constituency link that is a valuable part of our country. The Bill is bad for democracy and, without hesitation, we endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said. This is a bad Bill, which will undermine our system of democracy. It is bad for the country and we should not entertain it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has just accused the Government of arrogance. Some accusations I am prepared to answer in detail and in full, but I am not prepared to accept an accusation of arrogance from the Conservative party, given its record in the past 18 years and even since the general election. The accusation comes from a party that has never yet revealed where one penny piece of its party funding comes from. It says that it still cannot reveal its funding for the past two general elections.
The Conservative party cannot work out a way of electing its leader, which in some way involves the party electorate. Yet the Conservative party accuses the Labour party of arrogance, when the Labour party has devised an electoral college system to elect its leader. So we will not take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman or his party. The Conservative party has a long way to go in its internal democracy before it will be in a position to lecture anyone in the House or elsewhere on party democracy.
We have had an interesting and, for some hon. Members I suspect, educational debate. The hon. Member for Hertsmere conceded that the more he listened to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the more he understood the d'Hondt system and its variants. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have sat through my right hon. Friend's explanation of the matter on four occasions


now and I am becoming, next to him, the most undisputed expert in the House on all the aspects of the lists that may be used.
It has been a useful debate. In a moment, I shall try to deal with some of the specific questions that have been raised, but first I want to express satisfaction that at long last a system for electing Members of the European Parliament, which is appropriate, on its own merits and because it fulfils our obligation as members of the European Union, is about to be delivered. Some hon. Members—admittedly, one or two Labour Members—are concerned that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge and that once we concede the point for the European parliamentary elections, we shall end up with a system of proportional representation for the House of Commons. It is too early to say that.
We made a commitment to set up an independent commission—not a Labour party creature, as the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) suggested—to examine the most appropriate voting systems and proportional voting systems for the House of Commons. Once the commission has made recommendations—this is the important point— it will be up to not the House of Commons or the Government, but the electorate, to decide in a referendum on the most appropriate way of electing Members of Parliament.

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to set up an independent commission and put the result to a referendum, why not adopt the same procedure for the European Parliament?

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have listened to what was said earlier and what I said a few moments ago. Perhaps at this point I should bring in the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire. The difficulty for Conservative Members is the fact that we are in the process of delivering a manifesto commitment. I know that that concept is alien to them. They stand for election on a set of promises and pledges and abandon them immediately after the election, but the Labour Government have a clear understanding that we made promises to the electorate. We did not make long lists of promises. They were focused. They were promises that we knew we could deliver. The promise to introduce a new voting system for elections to the European Parliament was one that we knew we could deliver.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is well respected in the House. During the period of office of the previous Government, he contributed a great deal to our understanding of regional policy and how regional boundaries were drawn. He made an interesting point in his speech—he said that he always worried when someone used the word "appropriate", which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had used. He went so far as to say, perhaps injudiciously, that as a Minister he never allowed the use of the word "appropriate" in correspondence. If someone digs around, they may prove him wrong on that.

Mr. Curry: "Appropriate" is civil servant language for, "We know best."

Mr. Howarth: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that he is uncomfortable with the use of the word

"appropriate". Wondering why the right hon. Gentleman was so concerned, I looked up the word in the Collins dictionary and found out why. The dictionary says: "Suitable; proper; right; fitting." Of course, the right hon. Gentleman does not like anything that is appropriate. He does not like anything that is suitable, proper, right or fitting, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. The concept of the Bill is proper, right and fitting. We believe that, for the type of assembly that we are discussing, that is an appropriate way to proceed, and I do not apologise for using the word "appropriate".
In the debate, confusion has arisen between the nature and functions of this Parliament—although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained them clearly—and the fundamentally different functions of the European Parliament. In establishing an independent commission to consider possible voting systems to the House, it is our intention to study a range of systems, but those systems should be ones that are considered most appropriate for the House of Commons.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained that the difference between the House of Commons and the European Parliament is that our system of government is drawn from the democracy of the House of Commons. Ministers either sit in the House of Lords or, in overwhelming numbers, whichever party is in power, are drawn from the House of Commons. Of course, there will be a difference and of course constituencies play an important part in that function. I shall say something about that later.
The issues raised are important, and I shall try to deal with them in order of priority. If I miss anything out because of the time available, I am sure that hon. Members will write to me or let me know, and I shall try to make up for any deficiency at a later date.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire fell into the trap of confusing the application of proportional voting systems for electing Parliaments from which Governments are drawn with proportional systems for electing representative assemblies, such as the European Parliament. I believe that he came into the Chamber with a speech against proportional representation in general and decided, even though my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained the considerable difference between the two cases, that he had to soldier on with the speech that he had brought, although it was not appropriate to the Bill. However, he raised some points that warrant a reply.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said that the Bill was a dry run for one to introduce a system of proportional representation for the House of Commons. He believed that a secret deal had been struck behind closed doors by an unspecified person—the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or someone else—and that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was involved.
There is no hidden agenda—no dry run. An investigation will be carried out by an independent commission, and at the end of that process a referendum will be held. If we had struck a secret deal with the Liberal Democrats, it would have been right for us to bring the entire electorate into the secret, because in the end they will take that decision. There is no such conspiracy. The right hon. Gentleman may search for conspiracies as much as he likes; they do not exist. We believe that the


electorate are the most appropriate people to choose the system for electing the House of Commons, and we intend them to take that decision.
There has been a great deal of debate on both sides of the House about constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) was one of those who spoke on the subject. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made a passionate and at times eloquent—

Sir Brian Mawhinney: When the independent commission comes up with an alternative PR proposal to put to the electorate in a referendum, will the Government support that proposal?

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see what the commission comes up with. Let me be clear about this: I do not think that any Minister standing at the Dispatch Box or—if they were responsible—any Opposition spokesman would sign a blank cheque without knowing the precise terms that an independent commission would come up with. I am not prepared to do that; it would not be sensible.
The right hon. Gentleman and several of his hon. Friends mentioned constituencies. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South both raised the subject. Let me make it clear that simply because we do not think that constituencies are necessarily the appropriate vehicle to represent us in Europe, we are not attacking MEPs. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South mentioned my MEP, Terry Wynn; I agree with my hon. Friend that Mr. Wynn is an excellent representative who has represented our area well. I do not think that if Terry Wynn were to succeed, find himself higher up the list and be elected on the North West list, he would cease to be as effective, or cease to be as concerned about issues in the north-west or about issues affecting Merseyside, which I represent.
Some hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, are confused. They believe that the respect in which they hold their own Members of the European Parliament is a direct product of those Members representing a defined constituency. Some of my hon. Friends may be making the same mistake.

Mr. Harry Barnes: In terms of MEPs still being as effective under the new system, will my MEP still be as effective—his name is Ken Coates?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is always helpful. I can confirm that his current MEP will not be as effective after the next elections, as he has already announced his retirement. Perhaps during his retirement he can be effective in other ways.
The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire, said—and this was the high point of his speech—that the current arrangements of the constituency system had stood the test of time over centuries. That is an odd reading of history, because the European Parliament has not been in existence for that

long and there were no European Members of Parliament until the late 1970s. Allowing for some licence in his interpretation of history—

Mr. Bermingham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but this must be the last time, as I have to make some progress.

Mr. Bermingham: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to a near neighbour and a fellow Member in the same Euro-constituency. If there are perhaps three or four Labour MEPs in the north-west, who will look after the little fish such as St. Helens and Knowsley and who will look after the big fish such as Manchester and Liverpool?

Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend rightly says, my constituency is next to his. In fact, I live a few hundred yards from the border of his constituency, through which I often travel. I can tell him who will look after the interests of his constituents in St. Helens: he will and the local councillors will. Those who are elected on a regional list will continue to represent the interests of St. Helens, Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and Cheshire—there is no contradiction there. My hon. Friend is confusing his affection and respect for our MEP, which I share, with some magical connection with a Merseyside-wide constituency. The Euro-constituency in which both of our constituencies fall is Merseyside, East; it includes Garston in Liverpool and stretches to Wigan. I am not sure what the people of Garston think that they have in common with the people of Wigan, but I do not think that it is a great deal. Those issues of territoriality are already difficult, and will not be any more difficult if we move to a regional system.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said that the new system might in some way compromise the relationship that MEPs currently have with business interests in their constituencies. That is fair comment, and I do not believe that it was made for the purpose of point scoring. The right hon. Gentleman will know that Europe is increasingly a Europe of the regions. That sounds like a cliche, but it is true.
The dialogue that takes place in Europe at Commission level, at Parliament level and at other levels is based on regions—the common characteristics of regions, deprivation and difficulties in regions, and subsidiarity. Of course, business has already responded to that. Probably in every region of the country, there is a regional Confederation of British Industry spokesperson or some kind of organisation representing the CBI. [Interruption.]

Mr. Edward Leigh: Is the Minister saying that the system that he is proposing is simply different, or that it is better?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is an important debate and the Minister is winding up. He ought to be heard in silence.

Mr. Howarth: I was saying that Europe is increasingly a Europe of the regions. The Liberal Democrats have just walked in and proved that this is a Parliament of the regions.
The final point—

Mr. Leigh: Will the Minister have the decency to answer my question?

Mr. Howarth: I am sorry; I did overlook the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that the arrangements that business already has at regional level will change greatly. I do not think that there will be an improvement or that they will be any worse. It is arguable that there could be an improvement, because regions will talk to business on a regional basis.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) raised the matters of Sunday voting and of the amount of funding that parties will be able to spend on a regional basis. On Sunday voting, we are still open to arguments, but I accept the hon. Lady's point that in some parts of the country, most notably her own, that would raise difficulties. I am minded to take that into account.
As regards finance for region-based elections, we would have to examine the matter closely. There are legitimate concerns about how that will operate, and we want to listen to arguments and consider how it might work out in practice.
Several right hon. and hon. Members asked how individuals would find their way on to the list within the democratic structures of the various parties. I do not know how the Conservative party will decide who goes where on the list, if the Bill ends up on the statute book. That is a matter for the party to decide, but I suspect that it will not be by the most democratic procedure ever invented. An announcement has already been made by the Liberal Democrats. Within our democratic procedures in the Labour party, we are currently considering the most effective way of doing that. It is for individual parties to decide the most appropriate way to select their candidates and how people get on to the list.
The Bill properly represents what we said we would do. The Opposition have difficulty with it. We are in the process of delivering commitments that we made during the general election. The issue was determined by the Plant commission, passed by our conference and put in our manifesto. That is what we are delivering. It may be a novel concept for the Opposition, and possibly a first in the past few years, but this is a Government who deliver their promises, unlike the previous Government when they were in power.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided:Ayes 355, Noes 150.

Division No. 98]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Atherton, Ms Candy


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Austin, John


Ainger, Nick
Ballard, Mrs Jackie


Alexander, Douglas
Banks, Tony


Allan, Richard
Barron, Kevin


Allen, Graham
Battle, John


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bayley, Hugh


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Beard, Nigel


Ashton, Joe
Begg, Miss Anne





Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bennett, Andrew F
Denham, John


Benton, Joe
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Best, Harold
Dobbin, Jim


Betts, Clive
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Donohoe, Brian H


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Doran, Frank


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Drew, David


Brake, Tom
Drown, Ms Julia


Brand, Dr Peter
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Breed, Colin
Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Edwards, Huw


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Efford, Clive


Browne, Desmond
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Buck, Ms Karen
Ennis, Jeff


Burden, Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Burgon, Colin
Fearn, Ronnie


Burnett, John
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fisher, Mark


Byers, Stephen
Flint, Caroline


Cable, Dr Vincent
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Galloway, George


Caplin, Ivor
Gapes, Mike


Casale, Roger
Gardiner, Barry


Cawsey, Ian
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Chaytor, David
Gerrard, Neil


Chidgey, David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godman, Norman A


Church, Ms Judith
Godsiff, Roger


Clapham, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Dr Lynda
Gorrie, Donald


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clwyd, Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coaker, Vermon
Hancock, Mike


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hanson, David


Coleman, Iain
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Colman, Tony
Harris, Dr Evan


Connarty, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Corbett, Robin
Healey, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cotter, Brian
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cox, Tom
Hepburn, Stephen


Cranston, Ross
Heppell, John


Crausby, David
Hesford, Stephen


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hill, Keith


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hinchliffe, David


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hoey, Kate



Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Dafis, Cynog
Hope, Phil


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Darvill, Keith
Howells, Dr Kim


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Davidson, Ian
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Hurst, Alan


Dawson, Hilton
Hutton, John






Iddon, Dr Brian 
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Illsley, Eric
Moore, Michael


Ingram, Adam
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jenkins, Brian
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Morley, Elliot


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Mountford, Kali


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)



Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Olner, Bill


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Öpik, Lembit


Keeble, Ms Sally
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keetch, Paul
Pearson, Ian


Kemp, Fraser
Perham, Ms Linda


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pike, Peter L


Kidney, David
Plaskitt, James


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pollard, Kerry


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pond, Chris


Kirkwood, Archy
Pope, Greg


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pound, Stephen


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Laxton, Bob
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lepper, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Leslie, Christopher
Prosser, Gwyn


Levitt, Tom
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lewis, Ivan.(Bury S)
Quinn, Lawrie


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rapson, Syd


Linton, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Livingstone, Ken
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Livsey, Richard
Rendel, David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lock, David



Love, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCabe, Steve
Roy, Frank


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Macdonald, Calum
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mclsaac, Shona
Salter, Martin


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sanders, Adrian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sawford, Phil


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


McNulty, Tony
Shaw, Jonathan


MacShane, Denis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWalter, Tony
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McWilliam, John
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mandelson, Peter



Marek, Dr John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Soley, Clive


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Southworth, Ms Helen


Martlew, Eric
Spellar, John


Maxton, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


Merron, Gillian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michael, Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Milburn, Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Miller, Andrew
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moffatt, Laura
Stott, Roger





Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Tyler, Paul


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wallace, James


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Ward, Ms Claire


Stunell, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Watts, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Webb, Steve



Welsh, Andrew


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
White, Brian


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Temple—Morris, Peter
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Timms, Stephen
Willis, Phil


Tipping, Paddy
Wills, Michael


Todd, Mark
Wood, Mike


Touhig, Don
Wray, James


Trickett, Jon
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Truswell, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Mr. John McFall.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gibb, Nick


Amess, David
Gill, Christopher


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Arbuthnot, James
Gray, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Green, Damian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Greenway, John


Beggs, Roy
Grieve, Dominic


Bercow, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hague, Rt Hon William


Blunt, Crispin
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Body, Sir Richard
Hammond, Philip


Boswell, Tim
Hawkins, Nick


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hayes, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Heald, Oliver


Brady, Graham
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Brazier, Julian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Horam, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Butterfill, John
Hunter, Andrew


Cann, Jamie
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clappison, James
Key, Robert


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor



Lansley, Andrew


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward


Collins, Tim
Letwin, Oliver


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Loughton, Tim


Donaldson, Jeffrey
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Duncan, Alan
MacKay, Andrew


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Madel, Sir David


Faber, David
Maginnis, Ken


Fabricant, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John


Flight, Howard
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Mawhinney, Ftt Hon Sir Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
May, Mrs Theresa


Fox, Dr Liam
Moss, Malcolm


Fraser, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Norman, Archie


Garnier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard






Page, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Paterson, Owen
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Prior, David
Thompson, William


Randall, John
Townend, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Robathan, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tyrie, Andrew


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Viggers, Peter


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Walter, Robert


Ruffley, David
Wardle, Charles


St Aubyn, Nick
Waterson, Nigel


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Whitney, Sir Raymond



Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Shepherd, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Willetts, David


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spicer, Sir Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Steen, Anthony 



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. John Whittingdale and


Syms, Robert
Mr. Bernard Jenkin.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. George Howarth.]

Question agreed to.

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of—
(1) charges to which returning officers are entitled by virtue of that Act, and
(2) sums required by the Secretary of State for expenditure on the provision of training relating to functions conferred on returning officers by virtue of that Act.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community Documents.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Orders of the Day — LANDFILL OF WASTE

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6692/97, relating to the landfill of waste; and welcomes the intention to set high regulatory standards for landfill sites.

Orders of the Day — TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHIES: CONTROLS ON CATTLE, SHEEP AND GOATS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10040/97, on the prohibition of the use of material presenting risks relating to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies; and supports the Government's position that such controls are necessary for the protection of public health and to avoid the risk of undermining the Single Market.

Orders of the Day — DRAFT BUDGET FOR 1998

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10153/97, the draft general budget of the European Communities for 1998, and PE262.699, the European Parliament's proposed amendments to the draft general budget of the European Communities for 1998; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.
That the draft Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION

That the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Fourth Amendment) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MT Gaul

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Mr. Alan Johnson: This debate will deal with an issue that is of great concern to the people of Hull. As I discovered this week, however, the issue strikes a chord across the country, particularly in seafaring communities.
In this very short debate, I shall try first to make a case for reopening the inquiry into the loss of the Hull trawler the MT Gaul, which disappeared in February 1974 without trace and without sending any sign of distress. I shall argue also that the inquiry should be extended to cover the arrangements that were made to find the wreck of the Gaul. Finally, I shall ask the Minister to meet representatives of the families of the 36 men—the entire crew of the Gaul—who were lost. I know that the Minister appreciates that those families are the other victims of the tragedy.
The Gaul was a so-called super-trawler, and it was state of the art in every respect. Its design and safety features included automatic steering, a dual radar system and high-quality radio and telegraphy equipment. It was almost the first trawler to have safety equipment that 50 people could use in automatically inflatable life rafts. It substantially exceeded recommended stability criteria, and was thought to be unsinkable. It was less than two years old, and it had an experienced skipper and crew. Like all Hull trawlers, it fished in Arctic conditions, and was built to withstand such extreme weather conditions.
The Gaul disappeared in the vicinity of the North Cape bank in the Barents sea. There were fierce storms when it disappeared, but such storms were common. There were 17 other trawlers in the area, all of which rode out the storms on that dreadful evening.
In November 1974, the formal investigation in Hull—I make no criticism of its conclusions—determined that there was no trace of the Gaul. There had been no distress calls; no oil had been found on the surface; and no wreckage had been discovered, other than a lifebuoy that appeared three months afterwards—posing another mystery, which I do not have time to explore in this debate.
The inquiry, dealing with a hypothetical situation, did the best it could. It dismissed the theory that water had accumulated on the Gaul's factory deck—perhaps because a door had been left open, as tragically happened some years later on the Herald of Free Enterprise. Such an explanation for the Gaul sinking was dismissed because, had it happened, there would have been time to send a distress signal.
In the end, the inquiry concluded that the Gaul capsized and foundered as a result of being buffeted by heavy seas, when it was broadside in the midst of a turning manoeuvre against the oncoming weather. A subsequent two-year study by the National Maritime Institute concluded that the ship was so stable that that could not be the only reason it sank. It concluded that there must have been a contributory factor, such as damage being caused to the bridge by a large wave, affecting the steerage and radio contact.
Those were the results of an inquiry and subsequent examination that had only supposition and theory to guide them. I do not criticise that work, but I wish to draw attention tonight to a significant development.
The wreck of the Gaul has now been found, 270 m down on the seabed and 60 miles off the coast of Norway, by a film crew working on a Channel 4 documentary. Using a remotely operated vehicle, the film proved three important facts. First, it established that the wreck was, beyond any doubt, that of the Gaul. Secondly, it established that there was no damage to the bridge— and, indeed, its windows were still intact.
Thirdly, there appeared to be no damage to the superstructure of the ship, which would have been expected if it had taken a buffeting from heavy seas and fallen 1,000 ft to the bed of the Barents sea. One other fact emerged from the documentary—the wreck was facing almost directly into the weather rather than broadside, as the inquiry had concluded.
We should be grateful to Channel 4 for finding the Gaul, but it is now the Government's responsibility to ensure that it is fully and properly surveyed. The new evidence that necessitates the reopening of the inquiry appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, and there is no good reason for delaying the announcement of its reopening.
I turn now to the subject of the search for the Gaul, which should be part of a reopened inquiry. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for replying so quickly to my written questions on the subject. I asked how many reports had been received about the possible location of the Gaul, and in particular I asked whether the fishing protection frigate, the Mohawk, had made a report. The Minister replied that the Mohawk reported only on her involvement with the search and rescue operation, but that 13 other reports were received about the Gaul's location and they varied widely.
It was on that basis that the Government refused to launch any search for the wreck of the Gaul. Indeed, least year, the Ministry of Defence stated:
because of the limited information about the Gaul's position when she went down it would be necessary to search hundreds, probably thousands, of square miles of sea bed.
At the heart of the debate is the belief that the only thing that was limited in the search for the Gaul was the authorities' determination to find it. It has now been revealed that a Norwegian trawler, the Riaro, had reported a sonar reading showing an obstruction on the seabed some 60 miles off the coast of Norway, shortly after the Gaul was lost. Testimony has also been produced from crewmen on the Mohawk, who reported that they found the wreck in the original search but were ignored.
How did Channel 4 track down a wreck that the full might of this maritime nation could not discover in 23 years? What time and expense was involved for the film crew? I can tell the House that the television producer involved, who has no seafaring experience, sat at home with naval charts that it is open for anybody to look at, and, using the sightings that had been reported to the authorities and the charts, established the likely location of the wreck. He then hired a boat that used to be a ferry but which had been turned into an underwater survey vessel, and found the wreck. It cost less than £50,000, and took only two days. That is very disturbing for the families of those who were lost on the Gaul. It is not true


to argue that side scan sonar technology has only recently become available. Side scan sonars were available to the military before the tragedy. They have been in widespread use since the discovery of offshore oil in 1980. The lack of available technology cannot be used as an argument.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): My constituent Sheila Doone is the widow of radio operator John Doone. There are fears in my constituency that there has been an official cover-up about the boat having been involved in a spying exercise. People are concerned that the veil of secrecy should be lifted after so many years.

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is a feature of the documentary that needs to be mentioned. I accept that it is not the responsibility of the Minister, but it is part of the argument for reopening the inquiry.
In August 1974, the then Defence Minister Bill Rogers—now Lord Rogers—wrote to the relatives of the crew, saying:
I can assure you that the British trawler fleet is not involved in any way in any intelligence gathering.
That denial was repeated as recently as March 1992.
It is beyond dispute that Hull trawlers were used consistently and extensively to spy on the Russian northern fleet in the strategically vital Barents sea. The trawlermen and their skippers, who, in the best traditions of the British working class, would not risk betraying their country by broadcasting their involvement, have known that all along. It has been common knowledge among the families of Hull trawlermen.
As a result of two television documentaries and press inquiries, we have the testimony of a scientist who worked in British intelligence, a Russian-speaking naval wireless operator specialising in interception, the managing director of a major Hull trawler company, and a former rear admiral. They, among others, have confirmed that Hull trawlers were used for espionage and counter-espionage in the Barents sea. Lord Rogers now accepts publicly that he was misled.
The families of those lost understand the sensitivity of the operations, and accept that the Gaul may not have been involved in such work. They accept that, during the cold war, Governments could not be as open as they would have liked. They know that other trawlers from the same company were used by the British Government, and that the Government continued to deny any involvement. They say that, logically, now that the cold war is over, there can surely be openness and honesty on the issue.
The television documentary shown on 6 November threw up a new mystery, revealing that close to the wreck of the Gaul was a cable stretched taut and running for several miles in both directions. The strong supposition is that it is a communications cable associated with the sound surveillance system—the SOSUS project— designed by the American intelligence service to monitor the passage of Russian submarines. Those points add to the case for reopening the inquiry.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: I am grateful for the opportunity to express my support for the reopening of the inquiry. There is considerable interest in my constituency, because the Gaul was built at Brooke Marine shipyard in Lowestoft. Local people know that it

was a fine boat. Being a seafaring, fishing community, the people of Lowestoft well understand the grief that disasters at sea cause. It is most unsatisfactory that the mystery has remained open for so many years.

Mr. Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The people of Hull appreciate the messages of support that they have received from Lowestoft and elsewhere. I appreciate the presence at this late hour of so many hon. Members for this important debate. It will be greatly appreciated by my constituents and others.
Hull is used to losing men at sea. As I said in my maiden speech, our men fish the deepest and most dangerous Arctic waters, and 900 Hull ships have been lost in the past 150 years. Hundreds of men have been swept overboard or lost in other ways in separate accidents. The hard and unrelenting cruelty of the sea has bred those qualities of stoicism, courage and dignity which characterise fishing communities the world over, and which make those communities so special.
Not all the crew came from Hull. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said, the radio operator came from Nelson, in his constituency. Six of the crew came from North Shields, in the Tynemouth constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) has been extremely supportive.
The families of the crew ask only that their grief and anguish over the past 23 years be respected by our ensuring an open and honest investigation into the circumstances of the loss of their loved ones on the Gaul.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Ms Jackson.

Mr. McNamara: I believe that I have two minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have an agreement with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the Chair is not aware of any agreement. Has the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) made an agreement?

Mr. Johnson: I have,Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not having notified you.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) for letting me speak, and it is not my intention to keep the House for long. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I are the only Hull Members now remaining in the House who also represented the port when the great tragedy happened, so I want to say a few words.
In Hull, when we have lost trawlers we have generally been able to overcome our grief; there has been public mourning and recognition. Although there was some of that for the Gaul, the fact that the vessel went down without any trace, without any bodies and without any evidence caused many questions to be asked. Most of those have been asked by my hon. Friend, but there are many more.
The real concern is: how was it that, for £50,000, that ship could be found in two days, when at the time, despite all the appeals by the then Members of Parliament for Hull, by the Conservative Members for the East Riding and by Anthony Crosland, who was then my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby, it was impossible to find it? Now we just do not know what to believe.
That is the real problem. The anguish is there, and the anger about how easily the wreck has been found is reflected in our community. We just do not know, and we are very unhappy about that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on having secured the debate, and thank him for his generosity in allowing an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
The importance of the debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle has rightly pointed out, is underlined by the presence in the Chamber of so many of our colleagues, and also by the presence beside me on the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence.
I am confident that the whole House would wish to join me in extending sympathy to the relatives of the crew of the Gaul who were so desperately bereaved in the tragedy—a tragedy exacerbated and made a thousand times worse by the fact that, for a quarter of a century, the families did not know where the vessel lay.
The marine accidents investigation branch is now examining the evidence provided by the television documentary team to determine whether it can clarify how the Gaul was lost. Inspectors met the maker of the Channel 4 "Dispatches" film, "Secrets of the Gaul" on 13 November to discuss their latest findings. The meeting lasted two hours and was very useful, as the programme maker was especially co-operative.
The marine accidents investigation branch was not formed until 1989, and therefore had nothing to do with the previous investigation into the tragedy. However, the files raised during the investigation are now held in the MAIB's Southampton offices.
My hon. Friend suggested that the loss of the Gaul may have been in some way related to intelligence gathering— a point also made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). That is more properly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but the Government are determined to be as open as possible on the subject, so as to ensure that no misunderstanding about the role of British trawlers in intelligence gathering is allowed to expand. There is no evidence that the Gaul was involved in intelligence gathering, or that Royal Navy personnel or Ministry of Defence equipment were on board. A very limited number of other fishing vessels assisted the Government in specific intelligence gathering. This practice, I must tell my hon. Friends, had ceased before the loss of the Gaul.
Returning to the subject of the investigation into the causes of the accident, it is worth recalling that the formal investigation into the loss of the vessel was held during

September and October 1974, some seven months after the tragedy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle was correct in stating that the formal investigation concluded that the vessel capsized and foundered due to being overwhelmed by a succession of heavy seas when she was broadside to the sea. Severe weather prevailed at the time of the disappearance, with wind speeds up to force 10 and wave heights reported by other vessels in the area of over 40 ft.
Although the Gaul was, as my hon. Friend pointed out, regarded as a stable vessel, extensive model tests and flooding experiments have shown that, in certain circumstances, water could accumulate on the factory deck and lead to a loss of stability.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: My brother Keith was a member of the crew of the Gaul but, fortunately for him and his family, he signed off just before she sailed on that fateful trip. Is it not the case that fishermen who fish those waters have known about her location for many years, and that many of them do not believe for a moment that she was broadside on when she foundered?

Ms Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The issue of where she is lying is something I intend to touch on later. In terms of the knowledge possessed by fishermen in the area, it is my understanding that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle pointed out, the snagging of nets upon the Gaul by the Norwegian vessel Riaro in 1975 was the basis for the investigation which the makers of "Dispatches" eventually produced.
Evidence was heard at the formal investigation from 48 witnesses, and affidavits were received from 12 others, including next of kin, expert witnesses and members of the public who had made representations to the Department of Trade, which was then responsible for marine safety. However, the investigation found no direct evidence of how the tragedy had occurred.
A major constraint on the investigation was the absence of any evidence from the wreckage. The only wreckage recovered was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle said, a small buoy. The exact location of the wreck was not established.
Following the loss of the Gaul, the Department of Trade considered a number of proposals for searching for the wreck. Proposals from the Royal Navy and commercial sources were discussed, but were not pursued, as it was decided that the considerable cost of each proposal could not be justified. Departmental records show that the lack of a positively identified search area was an important factor in these decisions.
It is important to remember that mid-1970s technology was less able than the technology available today to positively identify underwater objects from the surface. It was also less capable than current technology of surveying and salvaging wreckage at depths estimated to be 900 ft. Existing departmental records contain one report from HMS Mohawk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle pointed out, about her involvement with the search and rescue operation conducted following the disappearance of the Gaul. Several reports on possible locations of the wreck were received from fishing vessel skippers, and six from other sources. The positions given varied widely.
An accident investigation may be reopened at any time if new and important evidence is forthcoming. However, as a general rule, once an inquiry has completed its business, no further work is undertaken unless important evidence becomes available. Although a variety of possible positions of the wreck of the Gaul became known in the years following her loss, there was insufficient positive evidence to justify mounting an underwater search. This leads on to the question why the wreck was found relatively easily in the search undertaken last summer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle pointed out, the essential research was conducted by the producer of the programme "Dispatches".
The search area was based partially, but not exclusively, on the position of a new wreck site identified by the Norwegian trawler Riaro—a vessel to which I have already referred—on 15 November 1975. Once it was found, the total time of video filming using a remotely operated vessel was approximately one hour and 45 minutes, of which 20 to 30 minutes constituted significant material. MAIB inspectors have viewed it all. The search was successful, and revealed that the wreck was indeed the Gaul. That positive identification rules out the possibility that she was taken into a Soviet port, as some had argued in the past.
Only a small part of the wreck was surveyed. On the initial viewing of the material, it is not possible to confirm that she sank owing to flooding because of foundering. However, the survey showed very little damage to a funnel, the bridge front, the deck immediately above it, the deckhouse forward of the bridge, the whale back and the starboard bow.
The fact that panes of glass were still intact, and the absence of damage to the other parts seen in the underwater video rule out an explosion, high-impact damage or attack by any form of weapon. The lack of any evidence to suggest implosion and explosion owing to pressure effects as she sank suggests that the ship had

a good deal of water on board as she left the surface. Thus, the evidence seen so far does not contradict the finding of the formal investigation that she foundered.
The formal inquiry concluded that the most likely scenario that led to the ship's capsizing was that she was broadside to the sea. In fact, she is now lying as if facing the weather. It is difficult to determine whether her orientation at a depth of 900 ft bears any direct relationship to her orientation on the surface at the time she sank.
On the basis of what has been seen so far, I am not convinced of the need to reopen the formal investigation. The more immediate question is whether there is a need to conduct a more detailed survey of the wreck. That could be undertaken only in the summer months, when there is a reasonable chance of an extended period of fair weather.
We now know where the Gaul lies. We know that she played no part in intelligence-gathering activities, we know that she was not sunk by an explosive or other large impact, and we know that she must have shipped a considerable amount of water as she left the surface.
I will consider very carefully the points raised by my hon. Friend and others. Until new and important evidence comes to light that calls into serious question the findings of the formal investigation, my decision may well be that there is no need to reopen that investigation. I will, however, very carefully consider commissioning a more detailed survey of the wreck next summer, when, as I have said, it is to be hoped that the weather will be clement.
My hon. Friend began by asking whether I would agree to meet the families of those involved. I would, of course, be very happy to meet them: it would be a privilege. They are a testament to how to deal with a particular tragedy, without ever losing sight of the fact that what they wanted most to know was what had happened.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o' clock.